nuclear-news

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

Greenpeace taking case to European Commission against French government’s increased funding to EDF

Reuters 17th May 2017 Greenpeace is filing a complaint with the European Commission arguing that the French government’s recapitalization of state-controlled EDF amounts to illegal state aid for the utility’s plan to build nuclear plants in HinkleyPoint, Britain.

Greenpeace said the 3 billion euro ($3.33 billion) capital injection for EDF in March, plus 3.8 billion euros of foregone dividends since 2015 – the state leaves money in EDF by taking a share dividend instead of a cash dividend – are incompatible with European Union competition law.

“Instead of acting like a smart investor, the state is providing unconditional support to EDF and its nuclear projects that
threaten the health of the company, notably Hinkley Point. There is no economic logic,” said Greenpeace France legal campaigner Laura Monnier.   http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-edf-britain-subsidies-idUKKCN18D0MV

May 19, 2017 Posted by | France, Legal | Leave a comment

Gov. Andrew Cuomo urged to pull the plug on nuclear bailout, as lawmakers work against it

New York’s nuclear “bailout” faces court challenges and questions from lawmakers, Mc Alester News capital,  By Joe Mahoney | CNHI State Reporter May 18, 2017 ALBANY — The Cuomo administration’s effort to drive subsidies to three upstate nuclear-power plants is being challenged in both the courts and the halls of the statehouse.

The cost of what critics call a “nuclear bailout” is already being reflected in higher utility bills across the state.The opponents warn the plan will lead to higher costs for taxpayers and consumers as power bills increase for municipalities, school districts, universities and hospitals.

 Under the subsidy program, which has been approved by the Public Service Commission, New York utilities are buying power at inflated rates from Exelon, a Chicago company that owns the reactors at Nine Mile Point on the shores of Lake Ontario, James FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant in Oswego County and the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant in Wayne County.

OPPOSITION FORCES   Legislation to derail the program is pending in both houses of the State Legislature, though the fate of the measure is unclear. Meanwhile, lawsuits challenging the subsidy have been filed against the state by a group of owners of gas-fired power plants. The group contends the subsidy is illegal because it interferes with the federal government’s ability to regulate energy prices.

On a separate but related front, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, an environmental group, is challenging the arrangement in state court. It contends state regulators failed to follow proper procedures in approving the subsidy last year and that ratepayers will be left facing “unreasonable and unjust” costs.

The New York Public Interest Research Group, a consumer watchdog, has joined Clearwater’s court action. Its legislative director, Blair Horner, said court arguments in both lawsuits are expected to be heard within the next several weeks.

Horner noted several lawmakers have concerns that they were left out of the loop when Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushed through a subsidy that is expected to cost billions of dollars.

“It’s sort of astonishing to them that they were cut out of the process,” he said…….

DEMONSTRATION  Those fighting the nuclear subsidy have stepped up their campaign to convince Cuomo to pull the plug on it.

Representatives of NYPIRG and other groups opposed to it, calling themselves Stop the Cuomo Tax, staged a demonstration this week outside the governor’s Manhattan office.

“Too many of us have trouble paying our utility bills already, and now Governor Cuomo is raising our rates by almost $8 billion to fund a giant giveaway to Exelon,” one of the protestors, Renata Pumarol, deputy director of New York Communities for Change, said in a statement.

Joe Mahoney covers the New York Statehouse for CNHI’s newspapers and websites. Reach him at jmahoney@cnhi.com  http://www.mcalesternews.com/cnhi_network/new-york-s-nuclear-bailout-faces-court-challenges-and-questions/article_ea4d5e6d-35de-5d97-a98e-e438d08bdd15.html

May 19, 2017 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Lawyers and scientists defend the integrity of climate science

Under Fire, Climate Scientists Unite With Lawyers to Fight Back https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/science/under-fire-climate-scientists-unite-with-lawyers-to-fight-back.html?_r=0  By JOHN SCHWARTZMAY 15, 2017  Lawyers and scientists do not always get along, but some are now finding common cause in an effort to defend the integrity of science — especially climate science — in government and academia.

Climate scientists are feeling the heat as Republicans cement control of the executive branch and Congress. The Trump administration has already rolled back about two dozen environmental laws and regulations, dismissed members of an important science panel and taken down web pages giving information on climate change. Republicans in Congress have also brought pressure to bear on climate scientists.

Now scientists and lawyers are fighting back, with well-attended public demonstrations and legal action. The push included a recent conference that brought law professors from across the United States to New York for training to protect scientists who come under scrutiny.

Scientists have found themselves the targets of investigations from those who deny the evidence of climate change — most notably in the 2009 scandal known as Climategate, when hackers stole and released internal research discussions. Global warming denialists took comments out of context to allege widespread scientific fraud.

In Congress this month, two Republican representatives, Rob Bishop of Utah and Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke saying they would review climate change adaptation programs at his agency to examine the “effectiveness, management and levels of oversight” of the programs.

Other conservatives in Congress took aim at climate researchers well before the 2016 election. Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, last year subpoenaed federal climate scientists whose work supporting the evidence of a warming planet shows what he has called a “suspect climate agenda.”

Actions by the Trump administration have been met with anger, lawsuits and friend-of-the-court briefs. A group of former Obama administration lawyers has filed lawsuits seeking information about charges of bullying of civil servants and scientists who work on climate issues.

David M. Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former top prosecutor of environmental crimes at the Justice Department, has taken part in several such efforts, including briefs filed before Mr. Trump took office. He said the work was important both as an attempt to preserve environmental progress and as a message to his students.

In November, many of his students expressed dismay over the election results “and their concern that everything they came to law school for no longer mattered,” Professor Uhlmann said. “My message to them was, ‘Everything you came to law school for matters more than ever before.’”

Other lawyers are stepping up to protect dozens of climate scientists who have been targeted by private conservative groups demanding their personal emails and other documents. The groups, which dispute the powerful evidence underlying climate change science, use the tactic to unearth embarrassing and inartful language in private correspondence and then publicize it.

Those filing the document requests say they are trying to ferret out politicized, sloppy science and fraud. David Schnare, an official at the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, said, “The legislatures give the citizens a right to know, and for good reasons — and there are good reasons for citizens to find out what’s going on.” Mr. Schnare, who was a longtime E.P.A. employee, briefly served in the Trump administration’s transition team at the agency; the group receives funding from the fossil fuel industry.

The tactic can be “a P.R. home run,” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University who received one such demand in 2012. He said he recognized the filing as “a fishing expedition” intended to “find anything that makes climate scientists look foolish, or corrupt, or biased or stupid — anything that can cast doubt on climate science.”

Dr. Dessler cited the Climategate emails, which included discussion of the work of Michael E. Mann, now a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, with phrases like “Mike’s Nature trick” and a technique to “hide the decline,” which conservative commentators publicized as proof of fraud in climate science.

The phrases, which were taken out of context, did not involve fraud, and several investigations have cleared the scientists of allegations that they manipulated research to meet their predetermined expectations. Still, Climategate was used to smear the scientists; President Trump has cited the “horrible emails” as a reason for doubting the threat of climate change.

The law professors who came to New York for training attended classes taught by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.

The fund was created in 2012 in response to litigation by Mr. Cuccinelli that also involved Dr. Mann’s emails. Dr. Mann would eventually win that case, but by then, the burdensome litigation had run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills for Dr. Mann and the University of Virginia, his employer at the time.

In light of those costs, the defense fund got its start. What had been an informal referral network for scientists facing legal pressure took on structure and financing. Mr. Trump’s election has provided a boost to the defense fund, said Joshua Wolfe, a founder.

“We’ve been a bit overwhelmed by the number of checks that came in postelection,” he said. And while he noted that “we didn’t build the organization for the Trump era,” the previous cases “really prepared the organization for the current set of challenges.”

The New York conference kicked off an effort to build a nationwide network of legal aid providers. Participants heard lectures on open records laws and were warned that the climate fight could be brutal, with online harassment and death threats common for researchers.

One law professor attending the conference, Myanna Dellinger of the University of South Dakota, said her own environmental legal scholarship had prompted attacks from conservatives, so “if I could help others who might be in the same situation, I would like to do so.”

Emphasizing that she spoke only for herself and not for her institution, she added: “It would be easy to sit and do nothing and write about tax law. But some of us have to do something.”

May 17, 2017 Posted by | climate change, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Washington State taking legal action over collapse of a containment tunnel at a nuclear site

Washington State Demands Nuclear Waste Storage Answers http://www.courthousenews.com/enforcement-action-calls-assessment-nuclear-waste-storage/ JAMIE HENNEMAN  May 11, 2017 RICHLAND, Wash. (CN) — A state agency has taken legal action against the Department of Energy for the collapse of a containment tunnel at a nuclear site in Washington.

The tunnel, which housed eight rail cars of nuclear waste in Hanford – about 200 miles south of Seattle – left a 15-to-20-foot hole when it partially collapsed Tuesday. Although no one was hurt, some workers were evacuated and others sheltered in place while the air around the site was tested for radioactivity. Tests revealed that no radioactivity had leaked from the tunnel, and 50 truckloads of soil were brought in to plug the hole.

On Wednesday, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) filed an enforcement action urging the federal government to immediately assess whether failure of other storage tunnels is likely and to submit a plan to the DOE for the safe storage of the materials as well as a plan for permanent cleanup.

“This alarming emergency compels us to take immediate action – to hold the federal government accountable to its obligation to clean up the largest nuclear waste site in the country,” DOE Director Maia Bellon said in a statement.

According to the Department of Energy, Hanford has produced more than 20 million pieces of uranium metal fuel for nine nuclear reactors along the Columbia River. The five plants at the Hanford site discharged an estimated 450 billion gallons of liquid waste in soil disposal sites and 53 million gallons of radioactive waste in 177 underground storage tanks. Most of the nation’s nuclear weapons, including the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, during World War II, used plutonium from Hanford.

The Hanford site stopped producing plutonium in the late 1980s, with cleanup efforts beginning in 1989. The cleanup currently employs approximately 11,000 workers.

“Our top priority is to ensure the safety of Hanford workers and the community,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said in a statement. “The collapse of this tunnel raises serious questions about how it happened and what can be done to make sure it doesn’t happen again. This enforcement order is necessary to make sure we get greater assurance about the condition of these tunnels and the Department of Energy’s plan to contain any further risks.”

In a press release, the DOE highlighted how the age of some of the storage areas at Hanford are of particular concern. The collapsed tunnel was built in 1956 of timber, concrete and steel and topped with eight feet of dirt. It was sealed with the nuclear-waste-filled rail cars in 1965.

“The infrastructure built to temporarily store radioactive waste is now more than a half-century old,” Bellon said. “The tunnel collapse is direct evidence that it’s failing. It’s the latest in a series of alarms that the safety and health of Hanford workers and our citizens are at risk.”

Workers returned to their jobs at Hanford on Thursday.

May 13, 2017 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Medium and long term impact of South African court ruling – not good for the nuclear industry

A judicial appeal is widely expected. But it’s unlikely that the government will succeed in overturning the essence of the judgement. And an appeals process will delay any legitimate future nuclear power procurement.

 given the prevalent suspicion around the nuclear expansion, the regulator will be hard pressed to show that the nuclear option is in the public interest.

It is therefore unlikely that any nuclear development will succeed in the foreseeable future.

HARTMUT WINKLER: Inside Zuma’s nuclear meltdown https://www.businesslive.co.za/rdm/business/2017-05-02-hartmut-winkler-how-zumas-nuclear-ambitions-have-been-blown-to-pieces/ ‘The judge was unequivocal that by slipping the Russian agreement through parliament as a routine matter for noting, the former Energy Minister Joemat-Petterssen had committed a gross error’ 02 MAY 2017 – 08:01 HARTMUT WINKLER A South African court has ruled that critical aspects of the country’s nuclear procurement process are illegal and unconstitutional. The outcome is a significant setback for a network of entities that had been aggressively promoting a 9.6 GW nuclear expansion programme in the face of popular opposition.

Over the past four weeks controversy over the proposed nuclear build has reached new highs. This was sparked by a major cabinet reshuffle in which President Jacob Zuma ousted both his finance and energy ministers, replacing them with individuals regarded as pro-nuclear.

The reshuffle prompted some of the largest and most diverse street protests since the dawn of the country’s democracy in 1994. While many factors contributed to the outpouring of public anger against the president, the nuclear question was a common motif in the protests.

Opposition to the nuclear expansion programme centred on two points: the first was its prohibitive costs – some estimates put it at R 1 trillion which is roughly equivalent to the government’s total annual tax revenue.

The second is that it has become contaminated by allegations of corruption, with evidence pointing to politically connected groups and individuals benefiting handsomely from it.

Back to the drawing boardThe court’s ruling in effect means that the planners will have to go back to the drawing board. The case in the Western Cape High Court was brought by two civil society organisations, Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environmental Institute (SAFCEI).

The most far reaching aspects of the judgment were that it overturned ministerial proclamations made in 2013 and 2016 that enabled the development of 9.6 GW of nuclear power. It furthermore invalidated the intergovernmental nuclear collaboration agreements South Africa had signed with Russia, the US and South Korea.

The court’s ruling on the promulgations was damning and unambiguous.

South Africa’s Electricity Regulation Act requires the Minister of Energy to promulgate any energy generating capacity expansion through the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA). The regulator is required to vet the proclamation to ensure that it is in the public interest.

The Minister of Energy issued two promulgations to establish 9.6 GW of nuclear energy generation. The first one was concluded in 2013 but only made public two years later. The second one, which delegated the nuclear procurement to the state electricity utility Eskom, whose leadership is strongly pro-nuclear, was hurriedly and stealthily implemented in 2016 on the eve of the first sitting of Western Cape High Court on the matter.

Neither of these proclamations allowed a public participation process.The court ruled that both promulgations were illegal and unconstitutional. It found that the regulator had failed to carry out its mandate because it had endorsed the minister’s directives uncritically and hurriedly. In doing so it had not allowed public input nor had it considered the necessity of the nuclear build or the consequences of its delegation to Eskom.

The court was equally clear on the collaboration agreements. Unlike the relatively vague agreements concluded with the US and South Korea, the Russian agreement had a great deal more detail in it. It specifically committed South Africa to build nuclear power plants using Russian technology, set out a timeframe and placed specific liabilities on South Africa.

South Africa’s constitution stipulates that international agreements that will have a substantive impact on the country must be approved by parliament. The agreement with Russia clearly falls into this category and therefore needed to be submitted to parliament for debate and approval.

The judge was unequivocal that by slipping the Russian agreement through parliament as a routine matter for noting, the former Energy Minister Joemat-Petterssen had committed a gross error. In his judgment he said: It follows that the Minister’s decision to table the agreement in terms of section 231(3) was, at the very least, irrational. At best the minister appears to have either failed to apply her mind to the requirements of sec 231(2) in relation to the contents of the Russian IGA or at worst to have deliberately bypassed its provisions for an ulterior and unlawful purpose.This could open the door for further action against the minister as well as Zuma, who, according to the court papers, instructed her to sign the Russian agreement.

The US agreement was concluded in 1995 and the South Korean agreement in 2010. But they were only presented to parliament in 2015. The court declared them invalid in view of the inexplicable time delay.

The medium and long term impact A judicial appeal is widely expected. But it’s unlikely that the government will succeed in overturning the essence of the judgement. And an appeals process will delay any legitimate future nuclear power procurement.

Any attempt to re-initiate a nuclear build would have to start from scratch. Based on the judgement it can safely be assumed that the regulator can only endorse nuclear expansion if it can demonstrate that it’s necessary and that it’s a better solution to any other energy option.

But given the prevalent suspicion around the nuclear expansion, the regulator will be hard pressed to show that the nuclear option is in the public interest.

It is therefore unlikely that any nuclear development will succeed in the foreseeable future.

May 3, 2017 Posted by | Legal, South Africa | Leave a comment

South African govt will challenge High Court’s ruling against nuclear power procurement

Government will challenge High Court’s nuclear energy ruling Business Tech, 2 may 17 Energy minister Mmamoloko Kubayi told the portfolio committee on energy on Tuesday that she would be challenging the recent High Court ruling that called the country’s nuclear procurement processes unconstitutional.

She said that the department remains committed to the nuclear energy plan, and would seek a declaratory order from the court that it can continue with its plans, or alternatively appeal the judgment.

According to Kubayi, she has not problem with the request in the judgement that more public participation take place, saying she is in favour of running an open and transparent process.

She stressed, however, that the nuclear plan couldn’t be abandoned, with nuclear energy forming an integral part of the country’s energy future, with predictability and certainty needed for investors…….

The ruling has set back South Africa’s nuclear ambitions significantly, with even appeals processes and the litigation surrounding it likely to push back the process by about a year.

According to analysts, this delay is likely to put even more pressure on president Jacob Zuma and the political sphere leading up to the ANC’s elective conference in December, as the nuclear programme is a key component in pushing certain political interests.

The appeal comes as no surprise.

“The stakes politically and geopolitically for the government, and specifically for President Zuma, are simply too high. So much has been invested in terms of political capital, including two reshuffles. We therefore fully expect the government to continue to push down this road,” said research analyst at Nomura, Peter Attard Montalto.https://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/172967/government-will-challenge-high-courts-nuclear-energy-ruling/

May 3, 2017 Posted by | Legal, South Africa | Leave a comment

Cameco violated shipping laws, spilling toxic uranium sludge

Nuclear regulators find Cameco shipping violations Company spilled toxic sludge on U.S. 191 south of Blanding, The Journal By Jim Mimiaga Journal Staff Writer | Sunday, April 30, 2017 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found numerous shipping violations against Cameco Resources, a Wyoming uranium mine company that spilled radioactive waste on U.S. Highway 191 south of Blanding, Utah.

A report released on April 25 details the commission’s November inspection of the company’s shipping procedures and practices.

“Based on the results of this inspection, nine apparent violations were identified and are being considered for escalated enforcement action,” wrote Mark R. Shaffer, division director of Nuclear Materials Safety.

Cameco came under additional scrutiny after an incident March 28-29 when its regular truckload of barium sulphate, bound for a containment cell at the White Mesa Mill, leaked onto the roadway………

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission report, the list of violations against Cameco includes:

Failure to accurately assess, report and label barium-sulfate waste shipments,Failure to ship waste material in appropriate containers,Failure to test whether the material could withstand the vibration and acceleration of transportation,Failure to provide specific hazmat training.According to the report, errors in shipping paperwork at Cameco misclassified radioactive waste level as lower than the actual shipment, which led to it being shipped in the wrong container……..

Barium sulfate is a toxic byproduct of in situ uranium mining and is considered an environmental and human health hazard……https://the-journal.com/articles/43868

May 3, 2017 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

South African court annulls nuclear agreements

South Africa’s nuclear deals unlawful, court rules http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39717401 26
April 2017   A South African court has annulled initial agreements the government reached with three countries to help it build nuclear power stations.

The deals with Russia, the US and South Korea were unlawful, the court ruled. The government failed to hold public hearings and a parliamentary debate over its plans, it added.

Environmental groups said they welcomed the ruling, pointing out it came on the eve of the anniversary of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

The government has not yet commented on the ruling, in a case brought by the Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI).

Its plan to build eight nuclear plants at an estimated cost of around 1tn rand ($76bn; £59bn) has been dogged by controversy. Critics fear the deal will be unaffordable and plagued by corruption, and suspect that Finance Minister Pravin Gordan was sacked by President Jacob Zuma last month because he had serious reservations about it.

“In the past few weeks citizens have demonstrated their willingness to mobilise against corruption and the capture of our state. The nuclear deal is at the centre of it all.” SAFCEI official Siphokazi Pangalele said in a statement.

Concerns about the affordability of the deal contributed to global rating agency Fitch’s decision on 7 April to downgrade South Africa to “junk status”.

The government says it needs new nuclear power stations to meet South Africa’s growing electricity demand, and to move away from relying on coal-fire plants. The country currently has one nuclear plant.

It had reached preliminary agreements with Russia, the US and South Korea to build eight more, AFP news agency reports.

Environmental groups say South Africa should rely more on renewable energy to meet its electricity needs.

April 28, 2017 Posted by | Legal, South Africa | 2 Comments

South Africa’s Eskom nuclear plan set back, as Judge rules nuclear decisions unlawful

Back to square one for Eskom as judge sets nuclear decisions aside https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2017-04-26-court-rules-on-nuclear-plans-and-it-is-not-good-news-for-eskom/ LINDA ENSOR In a major reversal for Eskom’s nuclear plans the Western Cape High Court has set aside the two determinations issued by former minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson which lay the basis for the nuclear procurement.

It is back to square one for the utility as the court found that the determinations relating to the construction of 9,600MW of nuclear plants were unconstitutional and invalid.

It also declared the nuclear co-operation agreement signed between the South African and Russian governments to be unconstitutional and unlawful. This agreement is widely seen as laying the foundation for the involvement of Russian energy giant Rosatom in the South African nuclear build programme.

The first determination which was set aside was issued under section 34 of the Electricity Regulation Act and ruled that 9,600MW was required and should be acquired by the Department of Energy. It was signed in November 2013 by then energy minister Ben Martins but gazetted only in December 2015. The second determination was signed in December 2016 by Joemat-Petterson and identified Eskom as the procurer of new nuclear energy.

The determinations were approved by the National Energy Regulator of SA but the court found that the regulator’s concurrence with them was procedurally unfair, irrational and in breach of the National Energy Regulator Act as there was no public participation.

Judge Lee Bozalek, with the concurrence of Judge Elizabeth Baartman, also found that the request for information issued by Eskom in December last year was unlawful and unconstitutional and it was set aside.

The request for information, which closes at the end of this month, would form the basis for a request for proposal and for the procurement of 9,600MW of nuclear energy.

In a written judgment handed down Wednesday Judge Bozalek declared that the manner in which Joemat-Pettersson had tabled the nuclear co-operation agreements with the US, Russia and South Korea in Parliament was unconstitutional and unlawful, and set aside them aside.

The nature of the agreements meant they had to be tabled in terms of section 231 (2) of the Constitution, which requires the approval of both houses of Parliament, and not section 231 (3), as the minister irrationally decided to do, the judge said. Tabling in terms of Section 231 (3) does not require parliamentary endorsement.

There were joyous scenes outside the court after the judgment was handed down in the case, which was brought by Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communties’ Environment Institute against the Minister of Energy, President Jacob Zuma, the National Energy Regulator of SA, speaker of the National Assembly Baleka Mbete, chairperson of the National Council of Provinces Thandi Modise and Eskom.

Spokespersons for the two organisations said the judgment would ensure there was proper oversight by Parliament and the people in the process of procuring of nuclear energy, which would have to be undertaken in an open and transparent process.

The two NGOs argued there had been no proper public participation or consultation process over the determinations, which were “irrational and unreasonable”. The government rejected these arguments on the ground that these determinations amounted to “executive policy”.

Judge Bozalek, however, said the determinations – which would have far-reaching consequences for the country – were not merely administrative decisions, and a “rational and fair decision-making process” was required before Nersa decided whether or not to concur with the minister’s proposed determination.

The National Energy Regulator Act required that decisions that materially and adversely affected the rights of others had to be procedurally fair. The regulator decided to concur with the 2016 ministerial determination by means of a round-robin exercise a mere three days after being asked to do so by Joemat-Pettersson.

“In taking the decision Nersa was under a statutory duty to act in the public interest and in a justifiable and transparent manner but also to utilise a procedurally fair process giving affected persons the opportunity to submit their views and present relevant facts and evidence. These requirements were clearly not met by Nersa in taking its far-reaching decision to concur in the minister’s section 34 determination,” Judge Bozalek said.

He also ruled the two-year delay in gazetting the 2013 determination breached the minister’s decision, “thus rendering it irrational and unlawful”. The delay also violated the requirements of open, transparent and accountable government. The minister should have consulted with Nersa again in 2015 before gazetting the determination.

Red flag

The government’s nuclear plans have been red-flagged by credit ratings agencies, which downgraded SA to junk status.

President Jacob Zuma has been determined to proceed with the nuclear build programme, despite critics saying it is not necessary and beyond the means of a fiscally constrained government. His stance led to the removal of Joemat-Pettersson as energy minister and her replacement by Zuma supporter Mmamoloko Kubayi in the recent Cabinet reshuffle that also removed Pravin Gordhan as finance minister.

The draft 2016 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) says SA will not need new nuclear power plants before 2037, but until it is finalised, Eskom has been operating on the basis of the 2010 IRP, which proposes the construction of 9,600MW in nuclear plants.

In December, the power utility issued a request for information, which closes on April 28, and by the end of June it planned to issue a request for binding proposals from potential vendors, provided it obtained the approvals to do so.

April 28, 2017 Posted by | Legal, South Africa | Leave a comment

America looking to arrest Julian Assange, preparing charges

 

US prepares charges to seek arrest of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange – sources | 20 April 2017 | US authorities have prepared charges to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, US officials familiar with the matter tell CNN. The Justice Department investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks dates to at least 2010, when the site first gained wide attention for posting thousands of files stolen by the former US Army intelligence analyst now known as Chelsea Manning.

April 26, 2017 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy utilities NextEra, FPL lose lawsuit over $97.5 million in nuclear-related tax refunds

NextEra, FPL lose lawsuit over $97.5 million in nuclear-related tax refunds http://protectingyourpocket.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2017/03/30/nextera-fpl-lose-lawsuit-over-97-5-million-in-nuclear-related-tax-refunds/Susan Salisbury March 30, 2017 Juno Beach-based NextEra Energy Inc. and Florida Power & Light Co. have lost  a  lawsuit they filed against the federal government that sought more than $97.5 million in tax refunds.

The case involved the tax treatment of the costs to dispose of spent nuclear fuel — nuclear wastes.

In a 20-page ruling issued last week,  West Palm Beach-based U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg  ruled in favor of the Internal Revenue Service and said the company is not entitled to a tax refund.

NextEra had argued that the fees it pays to the Department of Energy for the disposal of nuclear waste qualify as decommissioning expenses and  should be counted as net operating losses. The fees should also be  eligible for carry-back to the in-service date of the reactor, the company asserted.

 Rosenberg ruled that the disposal of nuclear fuel as waste from a nuclear power plant does not constitute decommissioning.

“Stated another way, for fuel to be decommissioned, it would first have to be commissioned,” Rosenberg wrote.

FPL owns and operates nuclear reactors at its Turkey Point plant south of Miami and at its St. Lucie plant on Hutchinson Island. NextEra owns three nuclear plans through other subsidiaries. They are Seabrook, Seabrook, N.H.; Duane Arnold, Palo, Iowa and Point Beach, Two Rivers, Wis.

Nuclear reactors require nuclear fuel assemblies containing radioactive uranium, and after about four years the assemblies no longer efficiently produce energy. They are then spent fuel  and must be removed from the reactor and replaced with a new fuel assembly.

The tax years the company claimed it was owed a refund are 2003-05 and 2008-10. During those years, NextEra paid more than $73 million in nuclear waste fees to the Energy Department, and FPL paid more than $24.5 million, according to the lawsuit filed in April

April 26, 2017 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Guilty plea: man made bomb threats against nuclear plant in Florida

Man guilty of bomb threats against nuclear plant in Florida | 19 April 2017 | A north Florida man has pleaded guilty to sending bomb threats to a nuclear power plant, a school and other government and private facilities. Acting U.S. Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow said in a news release that 25-year-old David Wayne Willmott Jr. pleaded guilty on Tuesday in federal court to three counts of making threats to use an explosive device. Federal prosecutors say Willmott emailed bomb threats in 2014 and 2015 to the nuclear plant as well as two courthouses, two airports and a sheriff’s office.

April 26, 2017 Posted by | incidents, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

9 year old boy persisting in suing Donald Trump over his climate policies

Donald Trump being sued by nine-year-old Levi Draheim over his climate policies http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-24/the-nine-year-old-suing-president-trump-over-his-climate-policy/8466946 By North America correspondent Conor Duffy, 24 Apr 17, US President Donald Trump is eight times his age and a much more experienced litigator, but nine-year-old Levi Draheim is looking forward to seeing the leader in court.

Levi lives near Melbourne Beach in central Florida and is part of a group of 21 young people suing the president over his climate policies.

“The reason that I care so much is that I basically grew up on the beach. It’s like another mother, sort of, to me,” Levi said.

His local beach faces the Atlantic Ocean and the flat coastal terrain is one of the areas in the United States most vulnerable to a rise in sea level.

Levi and his family believe they are already seeing the effects of climate change in the local sand dunes, which are nesting territory for sea turtles.

“It makes me really sad seeing how much dune we’ve lost,” Levi said.

“When I went out on the beach after the hurricane, I was just crying because there was so much dune lost.” The young people suing Mr Trump began their legal action under former president Barack Obama, and last November they had a win with a judge dismissing a move from the administration to throw out their court action.

“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgement’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,” Federal Judge Ann Aiken wrote.

Last month the Trump administration announced plans to appeal, but Levi is not backing down.

“I was just totally shocked that he doesn’t believe climate change is real,” Levi said.

“It was a little bit scary. It was just a little bit disturbing he didn’t believe that climate change was real.”

The case has seen Levi and his fellow young climate activists face some rather adult language on social media, but his mother Leanne Draheim said she was not worried.

“Some people are saying like, ‘Why are you letting your kid get involved? What does he know? He doesn’t know enough to get involved’,” Ms Draheim said.

“But really he knows that he cares about the environment, he cares about being outside, and we’ve talked about how that’s not going to happen in the future for his kids if things keep going the way things are going.”

Climate change spending slashed

President Trump has not yet said whether he will stick by his pledge to “cancel” the Paris Climate Accord, but he has moved swiftly to curtail government spending on climate.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stands to lose almost a third of its funding under Mr Trump’s draft budget, and climate programs in other agencies will not be funded.

“Regarding the question as to climate change, I think the president was fairly straightforward: ‘We’re not spending money on that anymore,'” Mr Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney said.

April 26, 2017 Posted by | climate change, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Eskom seeks exemptions from nuclear procurement rules and regulations

Eskom Seeks Waivers On Rules For Nuclear Build http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2017/04/21/eskom-seeks-waivers-on-rules-for-nuclear-build_a_22048905/ The power utility says much of the work already carried out happened before the new rules came into force. 21/04/2017 Eskom has applied for several waivers from normal procurement rules and regulations as it forges ahead with the nuclear build programme, Business Day reported.

The applications are for exemptions from the rules governing government procurement as set out in the Public Finance Management Act.

 Eskom chief nuclear officer, Dave Nicholls, told Business Day that much of the work on the nuclear procurement had been done before the promulgation of the regulations over the last year.

He reportedly said Eskom wanted Treasury to assure it that the work already done would be seen as compliant with regulations, to avoid having to start the process from scratch.

 He said there was nothing untoward with the applications.

“We believe the work that has already been done is adequate and is equivalent to what Treasury is asking for,” he told the paper.

DA energy spokesman Gordan Mackay told Business Day the party objected to any “unacceptable” attempts to rush through the procurement process.

April 22, 2017 Posted by | Legal, South Africa | Leave a comment

Delay in legal order to move plutonium stockpiled in South Carolina

MOX injunction delayed until at least July 31 http://www.aikenstandard.com/news/mox-injunction-delayed-until-at-least-july/article_01a4ce3c-25f5-11e7-9f5c-8fd2c77c42e0.html  By Michael Smith msmith@aikenstandard.com  Apr 20, 2017 

An injunctive order that would move plutonium disposition forward in Aiken County will have to wait until at least July.

U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs signed an order giving all parties until July 31 to develop a jointly written statement that will be used to frame the order. The previous deadline was April 21.

Childs previously ruled the U.S. Department of Energy failed to comply with an agreement to dispose of 1 metric ton of weapons grade plutonium by Jan. 1, 2016. South Carolina sued the DOE, the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA director Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz and former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz in February 2016, saying the defendants reneged on their obligations to dispose of plutonium or make $1 million a day “economic assistance payments.”

Childs ruled the federal government failed to dispose of plutonium as agreed, but refused to issue any financial sanctions. Her order asks all parties to develop a joint statement to determine exactly what the injunction will say.

The April 20 order to delay comes at the request of the DOE and its codefendants.

According to court documents, the DOE’s budget is only funded through April 28.

In addition, the DOE cited difficulty in coordinating with a number of program offices and officials, “a process which is complicated by the fact that a number of leadership positions at DOE are not presently filled.”

The motion goes on to say that settlement negotiations will continue. If an agreement can’t be reached by the deadline, then both parties will submit individual statements, court records state.

The DOE missed the Jan. 1, 2016 deadline because the mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site in Aiken County isn’t built yet.

Once operational, MOX will convert plutonium stockpiles into fuel for commercial reactors. It’s presently about 73 percent complete, sources familiar with the project say.

The plutonium disposition is part of a nuclear deal with Russia, both nations agreed to dispose of 34 metric tons of defense plutonium. An NNSA news release from 2011 heralding the MOX deal said that’s enough plutonium to make 17,000 nuclear weapons.

Russia suspended, but didn’t withdraw from, the agreement in 2016. While not citing MOX directly, Russian President Vladimir Putin cited “unfriendly” practices by the U.S.

Both nations were supposed to begin disposition in 2018, the NNSA news release said.

April 22, 2017 Posted by | - plutonium, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »