nuclear-news

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

Nuclear waste at Chalk River: opponents defeated in court.

By Nelly Albérola, Radio-Canada, ICI Ottawa-Gatineau, March 6, 2025

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2145786/rejet-decision-nucleaire-chalk-river-dechet [en français]

The Federal Court has dismissed an application for judicial review by citizens’ groups and scientists opposed to the Chalk River radioactive waste disposal site in Deep River, Ontario.

The ruling has gone almost unnoticed. In the wake of the Kebaowek First Nation’s victory over Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), the Federal Court has handed down another decision concerning the proposed Chalk River nuclear waste disposal site.

Please note: This victory will require the CCNS to have meaningful consultations with the Algonquins on whose traditional lands the radioactive waste dump is intended to be built. Neither the Algonquins nor the citizens of Ontario or Quebec were ever consulted about the choice of site for the dump, located one kilometre from the Ottawa River which borders Quebec and flows into the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. – G. Edwards

On February 20, the federal judge dismissed the application for judicial review brought before the court by three citizens’ groups: Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive.

A justified decision, according to the court

These groups include a number of retired scientists. They consider the decision of the

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to be unreasonable. authorize, in January 2024, the construction of a near-surface disposal facility (NSDF) for about one million tons of “low-level” radioactive waste.

“When read as a whole and taking into account the experience and technical expertise of the Commission, the decision is justified, intelligible and transparent. Consequently, the present application will be rejected,” reads the Federal Court’s decision.

“We’re certainly disappointed,” says Ginette Charbonneau, spokesperson for the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive. “We’ve been working for six years and more to tighten up this project, to make it better.”

“Our chances of success were virtually nil,” admits another spokesman for the Ralliement, Gilles Provost. “The judge couldn’t change the Commission’s decision, but had to judge whether the decision was unreasonable: that’s an extremely heavy burden of proof.”

A view shared by the three groups’ lawyer, Nicholas Pope. “In the end, the court did not say that the decision was correct, only that it did not meet the high standard of unreasonableness,” he points out in a written response.

Murky administrative law, say opponents

Beyond their disappointment, the groups deplore the fact that the court took into account only the CNSC’s opinion, without considering the observations of other professionals who are nevertheless recognized in the nuclear industry.

“We rely heavily on scientific experts such as James R. Walker. Unfortunately, both the CNSC and the judge rejected his arguments,” laments Ole Hendrickson, a researcher and member of the Concerned Citizens group. “I was surprised that the judge said that the Commission can choose whatever it wants, rather than paying attention to all the arguments.”

For the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Gordon Edwards, the legal system is simply not well equipped to deal with these situations.

“Administrative law is murky: magistrates are in a difficult position when they have to judge these cases,” says the former nuclear consultant for governmental and non-governmental agencies. “The law gives the CNSC the power to make decisions on nuclear matters. The judge therefore does not feel empowered to overturn the decision of the agency that has been given the authority to make that decision.”

An unprecedented project

The physicist reminds us that the permanent installation of a nuclear waste disposal site is unprecedented in Canadian history.  

“We’ll never take it away again. This is where it will go and stay forever,” he insists.

“That’s why it’s so important to do it right, to make sure that all the safety measures have been taken and that they can be sustained over time,” he adds.

“The waste is going to stay in the landfill until it’s disintegrated. And that can take anywhere from a few years to millions of years, so you see the problem,” worries physicist by training Ginette Charbonneau. “You can [wear] a mask and say that legally, everything’s okay, but when you’re talking about radioactive waste, that’s not good enough.”

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Canada, Legal | Leave a comment

Supreme Court steps into debate over where to store nuclear waste

CBS, By Melissa Quin, March 5, 2025

Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday jumped into the decades-long dispute over what to do with thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste, as it considered a plan to store it above one of the world’s most productive oil fields, the Permian Basin in Texas.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the company Interim Storage Partners are facing off against the state of Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., which owns land in the Permian Basin, in the fight over what to do with the spent fuel generated at nuclear reactor sites. The waste can remain radioactive and pose health risks for thousands of years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 


How to address the problem of nuclear waste has been complicated by politics since the advent of nuclear power last century. In 1982, Congress enacted a federal law that required the government to establish a permanent facility to house spent fuel, later determined to be Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But the site has yet to be established amid pushback from the state, and funding from Congress dried up years ago. The project was halted during the Obama administration.

The issue of where to store the growing amount of spent fuel remains. Roughly 91,000 metric tons of nuclear waste from commercial power plants are currently in private storage, both at or away from nuclear reactor sites, according to the U.S. government. And with nearly 20% of the nation’s electricity supplied by nuclear energy, plants are generating an additional 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year, the Energy Department estimates.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in October and is considering two issues. The first is whether Texas and the landowners could challenge the commission’s decision to issue the license to Interim Storage Partners. The second is whether federal law allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to temporarily house spent fuel away from nuclear-reactor sites.

Oral arguments

During arguments at the court on Wednesday, three liberal justices appeared the most skeptical of the argument from Texas that it could seek review of the commission’s licensing decision in a federal appeals court……………………………

The legal fight

The legal battle before the justices Wednesday involves a license the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued in September 2021 to a company called Interim Storage Partners allowing it to house 5,000 metric tons — and up to 40,000 metric tons — of spent fuel in dry-cask, above-ground storage for up to 40 years. ………………………………………………………………………………………….
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-nuclear-waste-disposal-yucca-mountain/

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Beyond Nuclear files two relicensing legal actions

February 27, 2025, https://beyondnuclear.org/beyond-nuclear-files-two-legal-relicensing-actions/

In February 2025, Beyond Nuclear and the Sierra Club (“petitioners”) filed two legal actions challenging extreme relicensing decisions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to qualify and extend US reactor operating licenses beyond 60 years to 80 years. The petitioners have argued that these license renewals are based on faulty analyses of the environmental impacts for extreme reactor operations that are irrational, unreasonable, incomplete, unsupported, arbitrary and capricious. Beyond Nuclear contends that the NRC has failed to satisfy requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for both its generic and site-specific relicensing applications.

On February 20, 2025, Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club (“petitioners”) filed a 76-page legal brief in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in response to the NRC issuance of its new rule and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal (GEIS). The lawsuit draws attention to the federal agency ignoring the petitioners’ comments submitted earlier in 2024 on the Draft GEIS compiled. The petitioners’ substantial comments are supported by expert witness testimony of a retired NRC senior risk analyst and nuclear engineer focused on the materials facts that the new rule and rewrite of the GEIS, effective September 15, 2024, does not meet the legal standard for “adequate protection” of the public health and safety during the extended reactor operations from the destructive impacts of age-related degradation of critical reactor safety systems, structures and components (SSC). These SSCs include the large and irreplaceable steel reactor pressure vessels, reactor internal components, the massive concrete containment buildings and foundations. Other critical safety systems also include the miles and miles of the by and large inaccessible, uninspected buried control, instrumentation and power electrical cables and similarly extensive and inaccessible safety-related buried pipe systems.

The petitioners further challenge that the new rule and final GEIS do not meet the legal standard of “adequate protection” from the projected impacts of climate change on the increase of severe reactor accident risk and frequency as well as radiological accident consequences during the projected license renewal period.

In both the cases of age-related degradation of safety-related SSC operations and climate change impacts of severe accident risk and consequences, the NRC GEIS further fails to acknowledge an extensive list of  identified “knowledge gaps” and even broader uncertainties that erode the reliability of projecting operational risk, accident frequency and consequences into the license renewal period.

The petitioners are specifically challenging the NRC GEIS finding that the environmental impacts of a nuclear reactor accident “during the initial (40 to 60 years) and subsequent (60 to 80 years) license renewal term” would be insignificant or “SMALL” and, as a result, the NRC does not need to evaluate less impactful alternatives to extended reactor operations.

The petitioners are asking the federal court to vacate the NRC rule and Final GEIS. They further request that the Court order the NRC to more thoroughly investigate the adverse impacts, gaps and uncertainties of operational aging degradation of reactor safety margins. Furthermore, given that the NRC GEIS further claims that the adverse impact of climate change on reactor operations is “out of scope” of the agency’s environmental reviews for license extension, the petitioners assert that the court should require the NRC to take a “hard look” at the impact of climate change (sea level rise, increasingly severe storms, hurricanes, flooding, wild fires, etc) on severe nuclear accident risk and environmental consequences.

On February 24, 2025, petitioners Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club additionally filed an appeal to the NRC Office of the Commissioners regarding an Atomic Safety Licensing Board order on a 60 to 80 year license renewal application of Duke Energy’s Oconee Units 1, 2 & 3 nuclear power station in Seneca, South Carolina for operations out to 2053 and 2054. The licensing board order now under appeal to the NRC Commissioners denies their request for a hearing, dismisses all of the petitioners’ contentions and terminates the relicensing proceeding.

Oconee nuclear station operates beneath and downstream of two large hydroelectric dams; the Jocassee Dam, a 385 feet high earthen rock-filled dam, ten miles upstream of the Oconee reactors roughly 300 feet below the top of the Lake Jocassee water level of more than 1 million acre feet of water and; the Keowee Dam, a 175 feet earthen dam that immediately abuts the nuclear power station that is sited roughly five feet below the top level of Lake Keowee and an additional 990,000 acre feet of water.

The three reactors were originally designed, constructed as a “dry site” where dam failure was considered an “incredible” event. Only precipitation directly onto the reactor site was analyzed for its flooding impact risk and dismissed. The only dam failure evaluated was for a “sunny day failure” or a structural failure unrelated to severe flooding. The “initial” 40 to 60 years license renewal application was approved without any challenge or consideration of a flood induced dam failure resulting in severe nuclear accident consequences that were analyzed in an environmental review or the NRC Environmental Impact Statement.

The NRC site-specific Environmental Impact Statement for Oconee has concluded that determining the projected impact of climate change on the reliable operation of Oconee safety systems including climate change induced extreme flooding events is “out of scope” of an environmental review.

Both of the petitioners’ legal actions as filed February 20 and 25, 2025 stem from previous Commission Orders issued three years ago on February 24, 2022. These NRC orders were won on appeal  in the first round of Subsequent License Renewal Applications filed by the intervenors that resulted in the NRC rescinding the original subsequent license renewals for the Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 and Peach Bottom 2 & 3 nuclear power plants, as well as suspend other active subsequent license renewal proceedings pending a rewrite of the GEIS as reported by the Associated Press . These same NRC Orders required the NRC staff to rewrite a new rule and Generic Environmental Impact Statement because the previous 2013 GEIS as written only applied to the license renewal period for the “initial” 20 year license extension of 40 to 60 years, not the “subsequent” license renewal of 60 to 80 years.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

The Supreme Court faces the absurdly difficult problem of where to put nuclear waste

And so it now falls to the Supreme Court to decide whether this latest attempt to find a place to store some of the most undesirable trash on the planet must falter on the shores of NIMBYism.

America’s worst NIMBY problem comes to the Supreme Court.

by Ian Millhiser, Vox , 26th Feb 2025,
https://www.vox.com/scotus/399304/supreme-court-nuclear-waste-texas-nrc-nimby

On March 5, the Supreme Court will hear a case that may involve one of the most toxic examples of NIMBYism in American history. The issue at the heart of Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas arises out of a predictable problem: Absolutely no one wants radioactive waste anywhere near where they live or work, but that waste has to go somewhere.

Texas, as the case name suggests, involves an effort by the federal government to store nuclear waste in Texas, and at the same time, solve a problem it’s struggled with for nearly 40 years.

To fully understand what’s before the Supreme Court in Texas, we need to go back to 1982, when Congress passed a law that was supposed to establish a permanent repository for all of the radioactive waste produced by America’s nuclear power plants. This waste remains dangerous for thousands or even tens of thousands of years after it is produced, so it made sense to find a spot far from human civilization where it can be buried.

But then NIMBY — that’s “not in my backyard” — politics set in.

The US Department of Energy identified several possible sites for the waste, and eventually culled those sites down to three — one in Texas, one in Washington state, and Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But, in 1987, before these officials could complete the selection process, Congress stepped in and chose the Nevada site for them.

According to a Slate article on the eventual collapse of the Yucca Mountain plan, this choice is easy to explain when you look at who ran Congress at the time. The House speaker was Jim Wright, a representative from Texas. The House majority leader was Tom Foley, from Washington. So Nevada, which had the weakest congressional delegation at the time, lost out.

Indeed, according to Rod McCullum of the Nuclear Energy Institute, “the 1987 Amendment is now commonly referred to as the ‘screw Nevada’ bill.”

By the time President Barack Obama took office, however, the balance of power in Congress had changed. Sen. Harry Reid, of Nevada, was the majority leader. He set out, with the Obama administration’s support, to kill the Yucca Mountain project. Congress, at Obama’s urging, zeroed out funding for Yucca Mountain. Then, just in case the project wasn’t already dead enough, a 2013 court decision ordered the government to stop collecting taxes that would have funded the permanent storage facility until it could figure out where that facility would be located.

And that brings us to the present date, and to the issue before the Supreme Court in the Texas case. Without a permanent storage facility on the horizon, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission turned to an older statute which has been understood to allow it to authorize temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste since the 1970s, licensing a private facility to handle storage in Andrews County, Texas.

Texas eventually sued to block this facility, as did a nearby landowner. Their case wound up before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Two of these judges are from Texas. It’s not hard to guess what happened next.

And so it now falls to the Supreme Court to decide whether this latest attempt to find a place to store some of the most undesirable trash on the planet must falter on the shores of NIMBYism.

Indeed, the 1954 law’s language allowing the NRC to license possession of these three kinds of material is quite broad. The NRC may license possession of special nuclear material for reasons that it “determines to be appropriate to carry out the purposes” of the law. It may license possession of source material for any “use approved by the Commission as an aid to science or industry.” And it may license possession of byproduct material for “industrial uses” or for “such other useful applications as may be developed.”

Though both Texas and the landowner claim that this language should not be read to permit the kind of license at issue in the Texas case, they are swimming against at least a half-century of precedent. The landowner’s brief concedes that the NRC first claimed the authority to license facilities under the 1954 law in 1975 (it claims that this fact cuts against the government’s case, because the NRC waited two decades to claim this power, but the fact remains that this question has been settled for 50 years). The landowner’s brief also concedes that the NRC finalized regulations governing licenses for such facilities in 1980.

That said, the landowner’s brief does make a plausible — if not, exactly, airtight — argument that the 1982 law overrides the 1954 law’s provisions concerning private storage facilities. (Texas’s brief, by contrast, is heavy on overwrought rhetoric claiming that nuclear waste must be stored at Yucca Mountain, and light on the kind of statutory analysis that a responsible judge would rely upon in deciding this case.)

Among other things, the landowner’s legal team points to three provisions of the 1982 law which say that the NRC shall “encourage” storage of nuclear waste “at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor,” and take other steps to promote such onsite storage. They also point to a provision calling for a federal storage facility. And, they highlight a provision stating that the 1982 law should not be read to “encourage” or “authorize” private storage facilities away from a reactor.

As the landowner’s legal team writes, allowing the Texas facility to exist would “discourage” creating new storage capacity at reactor sites, the opposite of what the 1982 law was supposed to accomplish.

It’s safe to say that, when Congress wrote the 1982 law, they imagined a world where nuclear waste would be stored either at reactor sites or at a federal facility, and not at a private facility like the one at issue in Texas. But the 1982 law also does not explicitly repeal the 1954 law’s provisions governing the three kinds of nuclear material. So the government has a very strong argument that it can still rely on those provisions to license the facility in Texas.

There is a possibility that the Supreme Court will simply make this case go away

There’s a real possibility that the Supreme Court will get rid of this case on procedural grounds, effectively handing a victory to the government.

Briefly, the federal law that both Texas and the landowner relied upon to bring their case to the Fifth Circuit permits “any party aggrieved by the final order” of the NRC to challenge that decision in a federal appeals court. The government argues that, to qualify as a “party,” Texas or the landowner must have participated “as a litigant” in the NRC’s internal proceeding governing the Andrews County license.

While both the state and the landowner took some steps to make their views known to the NRC during that proceeding, neither ever officially became litigants. Thus, the government argues, they do not count as a “party” to that proceeding which can appeal the NRC’s decision, and the Court should toss the case out. The key thing to know about this legal argument is that it may be enough to prevent the justices from reaching the merits of this particular case.

If the Court does reach the merits, however, it faces a difficult decision. Allowing the Andrews County project to move forward will undoubtedly trigger the same kind of political backlash that has accompanied every other attempt to pick a site to store nuclear waste. But, if this project is not allowed, it’s far from clear where the waste would go.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

SCOTUS goes nuclear: Justices’ decision could seal spent fuel storage options for decades.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will not be hearing technical, economic, or social arguments in this case; the matters of interest are purely legal. These legal interpretations, however, will have profound implications for how commercial spent nuclear fuel is handled until plans for permanent repositories are developed.

 Bulleting of Atomic Scientists, By Riley Fisher, Muhammad Abdussami, Aditi Verma | February 20, 2025

US nuclear waste policy is at a critical turning point. Mired in decades of disappointments and shortcomings, the monkey on nuclear power’s back is just weeks away from being freed—or being strapped in place. The issue at hand: whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had the legal authority to grant a permit for the construction and operation of a privately-owned temporary spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Texas.

On March 5, 2025, representatives from the NRC and the state of Texas will convene in Washington, D.C., to argue this issue in front of the United States Supreme Court. The NRC v. Texas case will end a battle of nearly three and a half years over the legality of privately-owned interim nuclear waste storage in the United States. However, while the Supreme Court’s ruling will settle the battle, it will resolve only one aspect of the US nuclear waste management problem.

A ruling favoring the NRC would help the nuclear waste problem in the short term but might harm the long-term management situation, allowing the consolidation of spent nuclear fuel at interim storage facilities—a state of affairs that could place new constraints on the permanent solution of geological disposal. Conversely, a ruling against the NRC would hurt the waste problem short-term by halting interim storage plans—including those of Interim Storage Partners in Texas and Holtec International in New Mexico—but it would leave future permanent storage options unconstrained.

Temporary storage. For more than 40 years, temporary, consolidated nuclear waste storage has been a hot-button issue. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 tasked the president and the Energy Department with identifying, constructing, and operating nuclear waste storage facilities in underground repositories. With this act, Congress intended to create a program that permanently stowed away the hazardous waste produced by nuclear power operations.

The original provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act gave the president four years to start the construction of a geologic repository site following congressional approval. During this process, nuclear power plants were still operating and producing spent nuclear fuel, and Congress clarified that plant operators were primarily responsible for waste management while the executive branch did their repository siting and construction work. Under exceptional circumstances, however, the federal government was allowed to provide a limited amount of “interim” storage before the waste was transferred to a permanent facility. The federal interim storage program would temporarily consolidate spent fuel away from reactor sites that have limited capacity.

But when efforts for a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada stalled, the role of consolidated interim storage was put in a precarious position. Spent fuel continued to accumulate at nuclear power plants across the country, the federal government could not provide more temporary storage because it would violate the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and the NRC did not have explicit authority to license an external body to create temporary storage. This tension is the impetus for NRC v. Texas case now at the Supreme Court.

There are a variety of arguments both for and against temporary storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel in the United States. Proponents cite that reactor host communities should not be subjected to living near radioactive waste for more time than they initially consented; interim storage, they say, would increase safety and economic efficiency through consolidation. Critics, in contrast, argue that a community near an interim facility risks the same fate of non-consent in the event of further delay in creating a permanent waste repository and that the safety risks from additional transportation and shuffling outweigh the benefits of consolidation.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will not be hearing technical, economic, or social arguments in this case; the matters of interest are purely legal. These legal interpretations, however, will have profound implications for how commercial spent nuclear fuel is handled until plans for permanent repositories are developed.

Lower court’s contradictory ruling. Two main questions will be argued in NRC v. Texas. The first is a matter of administrative process and pertains to whether Texas had the legal right to challenge the NRC in the first place. Texas first challenged the commission under the 1950 Hobbs Act (which is not the Hobbs Act used in criminal prosecutions of organized crime), an administrative law statute that gives “aggrieved parties” the right to challenge federal agency actions. The NRC claims Texas did not follow proper procedure to be considered an aggrieved party and, therefore, did not have authority to challenge the license.

The second question is a matter of the function and authority of the NRC and is rooted in the language of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Texas argues that the NRC only has authority to grant temporary spent nuclear fuel storage licenses on the site of the reactor from which the waste originated. Therefore, Texas claims, the commission had no right to grant the license for a temporary storage facility in the state. The NRC, however, cites multiple previous court decisions that uphold this authorization. These federal-state disputes make a case like this ripe for Supreme Court intervention.

Like most other Supreme Court cases, NRC v. Texas is an appeal of a previously decided case in a lower court: Texas v. NRC. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

NRC’s appeal. The Supreme Court may decide in a variety of ways concerning Texas’ authority under the Hobbs Act and the NRC’s authority under the Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. While clarification as to whether Texas was a proper “party aggrieved” is certainly important, it is likely the Supreme Court will take the opportunity to define the scope of the NRC’s abilities regardless of the interpretation of the Hobbs Act. Even if the Supreme Court finds that Texas was not a proper “party aggrieved,” the Court will still have the ability to hold the issued license void despite improper administrative procedures taken by Texas.

………………………………………………………. Because there is no explicit authorization in either act, the Supreme Court will likely rule that the NRC lacks clear congressional approval. If this is the case, then the Supreme Court will have to decide whether private, off-reactor spent fuel storage is a matter of major national significance— also known as a “major question.” While the Supreme Court has yet to hear arguments on this specific issue, there are reasonable explanations for either ruling.

……………………………………Some legal experts argue that private off-reactor waste is not a major question. Because on-site storage is exorbitantly expensive, a consolidated interim facility operated by a private entity will likely alleviate taxpayers’ burden. The West Virginia case was decided partially on its nationwide economic implications, but such implications are not present in this case. Another argument is that the NRC issued its regulations for private off-reactor storage two years before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed. The fact that Congress did not revoke this authority from the NRC when passing the act could be interpreted as implicit approval. If the Supreme Court agrees with this perspective, it will likely allow Interim Storage Partners’ license to stand, even if the NRC did not have the explicit authority to issue that license.

Other arguments exist for this issue being a major question……………………………………

No perfect ruling. Either ruling will no doubt have vast consequences on the US nuclear waste management problem. A ruling in favor of the NRC would provide support for the nuclear industry’s ability to manage spent fuel, particularly during the continuous delays in permanent repository development. This result could also encourage private investment in nuclear energy by providing clearer pathways for managing waste, potentially revitalizing confidence in the industry’s long-term viability. However, a decision in NRC’s favor would not resolve all concerns with nuclear waste management. Many communities oppose the siting of temporary storage facilities, citing safety risks and the lack of a permanent solution. Resistance will continue to grow at local and state levels if these broader concerns go unaddressed. Congress will need to continue developing directives that strengthen and complement private solutions to waste management. A ruling in favor of the NRC would undoubtedly be a win for the nuclear industry, the federal government, and reactor host communities, as short-term pressures caused by on-site waste storage can finally be addressed. In the long term, this ruling will do little to permanently solve the waste problem and may place the nuclear industry into a false sense of security amidst concerns of interim facilities becoming de facto repositories.

If the Supreme Court rules against the NRC, it will create substantial uncertainty for the nuclear industry by rejecting the NRC’s authority to license private off-site storage facilities. Other corporations that currently plan to construct such facilities, such as Holtec International in New Mexico, will risk the revocation of their licenses. Decommissioned reactors with on-site storage may face danger to their storage license renewals, which will force active reactor sites to take in external waste while still generating their own. Situations like these can heighten safety and security risks, as many sites lack the infrastructure or oversight necessary for long-term storage and management.

However, a ruling against the NRC may bring increased attention to the issue and compel Congress to act decisively. ……………………………………… . A ruling against the NRC will likely be to the immediate detriment of the nuclear industry, the federal government, and reactor host communities. These pressures, however, may urge lawmakers to develop a new, permanent solution once and for all.

In the context of the nuclear waste problem, a ruling in favor of the NRC will be a short-term benefit but bring long-term risks.  A ruling against the NRC will be a short-term detriment but may spur renewed action for long-term solutions. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress must dictate a permanent solution, which will be less likely to occur if short-term pressures are alleviated by ruling in favor of the NRC. In the absence of immediate Congressional intervention, the nuclear industry and the Energy Department must still work closely and in good faith with host communities. Anything else will result in complete failure of fair and democratic planning—as has been observed time and time again.

Editor’s note: Arguments on the NRC v. Texas case will be held before the Supreme Court on March 5, 2025. Summaries, audio files, and opinions will be accessible here after the hearing. The Supreme Court will issue its opinion before recess in late June 2025. Proceedings and orders will be made available as they come here. https://thebulletin.org/2025/02/scotus-goes-nuclear-justices-decision-could-seal-spent-fuel-storage-options-for-decades/

February 27, 2025 Posted by | legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Allied Groups Reach Historic Settlement on New Nuclear Bomb Part Production

Gender and Radiation Impact project celebrates the historic victory of radiation impacted communities across the nation standing together in clear conscience in a legal challenge that has successfully required the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to obey the National Environmental Policy Act and include the public in big decisions it is making! NNSA is owner of the US nuclear arsenal, which it intends to greatly expand, which would have our taxes cover trillions of dollars paid to defense contractors.

South Carolina Environmental Law Project

Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition

Nuclear Watch New Mexico

Savannah River Site Watch

Tri-Valley CAREs January 18, 2025

Ben Cunningham, Esquire, SCELP,
Tom Clements, Savannah River Site Watch,
Jay Coghlan, Nuclear Watch New Mexico,
Scott Yundt, Tri-Valley CAREs

AIKEN, S.C. — Nonprofit public interest groups have reached an historic settlement agreement with the Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This is the successful result of a lawsuit against NNSA over its failure to complete a programmatic environmental impact statement on the expanded production of plutonium “pit” bomb cores, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This agreement and a joint motion to dismiss have been submitted to Judge Mary Lewis Geiger of the Federal District of South Carolina. Should the Court enter the dismissal and retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, the agreement will go into effect.

…………………….. In September 2024, Judge Lewis ruled that DOE and NNSA had violated NEPA by failing to properly consider alternatives before proceeding with their plan to produce plutonium pits, a critical component of nuclear weapons, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico and, for the first time ever, at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. The Court found that the plan’s purpose had fundamentally changed from NNSA’s earlier analyses which had not considered simultaneous pit production at two sites. Judge Lewis directed the Defendants and Plaintiffs to prepare a joint proposal for an appropriate remedy which fostered additional negotiations

In sum, the just released settlement agreement requires the National Nuclear Security Administration to:

•     Complete a nation-wide programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) on expanded plutonium “pit” bomb core production within 2.5 years.

•     Hold two successive rounds of public hearings, first on the scope of the PEIS and then on the draft PEIS before it is finalized. Hearings will be held in Livermore, CA; Santa Fe or Los Alamos, NM; Kansas City, MO; Aiken, SC; and Washington, DC (dates to be determined).

•     Citizens will have 45 days to submit scoping comments and 90 days to comment on the draft PEIS. The last PEIS in 2008 generated more than 100,000 public comments.

•     Until it issues a formal Record of Decision on the final PEIS, NNSA is enjoined from:

      –     Installing classified equipment at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility’s Main Processing Facility;

      –     Introducing any nuclear materials into the Main Processing Facility; and

      –     Starting construction on a related Waste Characterization Lab, Construction Maintenance Building and Vehicle Entry Building.

………………………………………. Of added significance, the PEIS will have to assess the impacts of disposal of large quantities of radioactive plutonium wastes from pit production at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southern New Mexico, located 2,000 feet underground in a salt deposit. Disposal of “transuranic” (TRU) wastes will challenge the congressionally mandated volume cap for WIPP, which the National Academy of Sciences has projected will be substantially exceeded. Nevertheless, NNSA expects to be able to dump TRU wastes at WIPP until at least 2050, fundamentally changing its mission from cleanup to direct support of expanded nuclear weapons production…………………………

The Settlement Agreement with plaintiffs’ and defendants’ declarations is available at https://nukewatch.org/settlement-agreement-and-exhibits (20.9 MB) more https://nukewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Settlement-Reached-in-Historic-NEPA-Lawsuit-Over-Plutonium-Pit-Bomb-Core-Production.pdf

January 21, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Former nuclear energy executives face federal charges in massive Ohio bribery scheme

Two former executives are charged in a racketeering scheme and turned themselves into federal authorities on Friday. The pair are charged in connection with the biggest bribery scandal in Ohio.

Laura A. Bischoff, Jessie Balmert, Michael Loria,  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/17/former-firstenergy-executives-charged-in-ohio-bribery-scheme-householder/77783516007/

Two former energy company executives turned themselves into authorities Friday for their suspected role in facilitating the biggest corruption scandal in Ohio state history.

The scheme involved over $60 million in bribes to secure a $1 billion bailout of FirstEnergy’s faltering nuclear plants and eliminate regulatory hurdles. The scandal has already landed one of Ohio’s most powerful politicians in federal prison.

Prosecutors indicted former FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones, 69, and ex-Senior Vice President of External Affairs Michael Dowling, 60, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a charge created to prevent organized crime and fight against drug kingpins.

“This alleged $60 million racketeering conspiracy defrauded Ohioans to enrich the defendants,” FBI Cincinnati Special Agent in Charge Elena Iatarola said. “The FBI will continue to pursue political corruption and corporate fraud to protect taxpayers and hold white-collar criminals responsible for their actions.”

The charging of the pair of executives is the latest in a case that’s racked the state since the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio first indicted former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and four others linked to the scheme in 2020. Householder was dealt a 20-year sentence in 2023 for orchestrating the scheme. Others tied to scheme are in prison, awaiting sentencing or have committed suicide.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine would not comment on the indictments during a press conference on Friday.

Prosecutors allege that Jones and Dowling participated in bribery, money laundering and obstruction to increase the company stock price and enrich themselves. FirstEnergy fired the two men in October 2020.

The Akron-based company previously pleaded guilty to bribing Householder and former Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Chairman Sam Randazzo − two public officials in powerful positions to help the company. The company paid a $230 million fine and agreed to cooperate with federal investigators……

Householder’s role in the scheme involved recruiting Republicans to win control of the House and passing the controversial House Bill 6, which included a $1 billion bailout for two nuclear plants then-owned by a FirstEnergy subsidiary. Former Ohio Republican Party chairman Matt Borges received a five-year prison sentence for his role.

Randazzo was accused of accepting a $4.3 million bribe to help pass that law and ease regulatory hurdles for the company. He had pleaded not guilty. The case was dismissed after he died by suicide last April.

A statehouse scandal fueled by dark money

Even before Friday’s announcement, the case has had a huge impact: Householder and Borges are convicted and imprisoned, two co-conspirators Jeff Longstreth and Juan Cespedes pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing, lobbyist Neil Clark and Randazzo both died by suicide, and FirstEnergy changed its leadership and board.

The latest development marks the first time federal authorities have charged the bribers instead of the bribe recipients.

The indictment paints a picture of how FirstEnergy executives used money and influence to their own advantage at the Ohio Statehouse. After House Bill 6 passed, Jones sent a photoshopped version of Mount Rushmore, featuring Randazzo’s and others’ faces on it. The caption read: “HB 6 F*** ANYBODY WHO AINT US.” 

In October 2016, the executives pledged to the FirstEnergy board that the company value would be increased by 27%. But at the same time, the utility faced a weak energy market and hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, especially from FirstEnergy Solutions, its nuclear power subsidiary. To turn the company around, Jones and his team pursued bailouts from federal and state officials.

In 2018, FirstEnergy Solutions filed for bankruptcy and said it would close its nuclear power plants absent a government bailout.

The latest development marks the first time federal authorities have charged the bribers instead of the bribe recipients.

The indictment paints a picture of how FirstEnergy executives used money and influence to their own advantage at the Ohio Statehouse. After House Bill 6 passed, Jones sent a photoshopped version of Mount Rushmore, featuring Randazzo’s and others’ faces on it. The caption read: “HB 6 F*** ANYBODY WHO AINT US.” 

In October 2016, the executives pledged to the FirstEnergy board that the company value would be increased by 27%. But at the same time, the utility faced a weak energy market and hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, especially from FirstEnergy Solutions, its nuclear power subsidiary. To turn the company around, Jones and his team pursued bailouts from federal and state officials.

In 2018, FirstEnergy Solutions filed for bankruptcy and said it would close its nuclear power plants absent a government bailout.

FirstEnergy used dark money groups to help Householder amass political power and become Ohio House speaker. In April 2019, Householder unveiled House Bill 6, which would require 4.5 million Ohio consumers to pay fees on their monthly electric bills to help keep the nuclear plants open.

‘An expensive friend’: Gleeful texts show fruits of bribery

Text messages Jones and Dowling included in the indictment show the glee the pair shared as their scheme to save the company on the backs of Ohio taxpayers took shape.

“Huge bet and we played it all right on the (state) budget and HB6, so we can go back for more!” Dowling said in a text to Jones the day that Ohio’s governor signed the bailout into law.

The pair followed the success of the bailout bill with a new goal: “Win the National Championship” − a reference to getting favorable action in the state budget that would guarantee the company millions of dollars per year as well as other favorable treatment.

“Tell LH to put on his big boy pants. Ha,” Dowling told Jones as they continued the scheme.

As FirstEnergy’s stock climbed Jones texted Randazzo – the state utilities commissioner accused of accepting bribes who committed suicide: “Those guys are good but it wouldn’t happen without you,” he wrote. “My Mom taught me to say Thank you.”

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear resister Susan Crane released after 7.5 month prison term in Germany

from Nukewatch by John LaForge,  https://www.nukeresister.org/2025/01/17/nuclear-resister-susan-crane-released-after-7-5-month-prison-term-in-germany/?fbclid=IwY2xjawH5EthleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTVW2eZGE2IE-W3LPf6iXXpESUr8kt2y7UvRgz2O8GmIutozT9gN37brag_aem_KHyUNaUTEixZQ46JaMNVpQ

U.S. Activist Ends 7.5-Month Prison Term in Germany;

Jailed for Protests Against U.S. “Nuclear Sharing”

Susan Crane of Redwood City, California was released from prison in Koblenz, Germany on Friday, January 17, 2025, after spending 7.5 months incarcerated for trespass convictions and refusing to pay fines stemming from a string of nonviolent protests against U.S. nuclear weapons stationed at the Büchel air force base, southeast of Cologne.

On June 4, 2024, Crane began serving a 230-day sentence at the Wöllstein-Rohrbach prison in Rhineland-Palatinate, the longest term yet imposed in the decades-long campaign of protests against the American-made free-fall, gravity bombs known as B61s at the base.  Dutch peace activist Susan van der Hijden from Amsterdam served 115-days along with Crane for similar convictions. After ten days at Wöllstein, the two were transferred to the Offener Vollzug or the “open prison” in Koblenz, a less severe system that permits daytime work release. Crane was welcomed by the Martin Luther Evangelical Church community of Koblenz and did light work around the church grounds for many weeks.

Crane, 81, a life-long peace activist who has endured lengthy prison sentences in the United States for anti-war actions, was convicted of several trespass charges in Germany after joining six “go-in” demonstrations at Büchel. During the actions on the German base, Crane and others warned personnel that stationing the U.S. nuclear weapons there, and NATO’s ongoing threat to use them known quaintly as “nuclear sharing,” are both unlawful. Tornado fighter jet pilots of the German air force’s 33rdTactical Air Wing at Büchel routinely train to drop the U.S. H-bombs on targets in Russia [1], most recently in operation “Steadfast Defender 24” [2] — provocatively staged in the midst of NATO-armed war in Ukraine.

In one action, Crane and others unfurled a banner that read, “Büchel Air Base is a Crime Scene.” According to legal scholars, the transfer of nuclear weapons from the U.S. to Germany violates the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) which explicitly forbids any “transfer to any recipient whatsoever [of] nuclear weapons.” [3] According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the U.S. hydrogen bombs at Büchel are the 170-kiloton B61-3, and the 50-kiloton B61-4.[4] The U.S. atomic bomb that incinerated Hiroshima in 1945 was a 15-kiloton device.

Crane said in a statement before entering prison, “I thought the German courts would listen to the reasons we went onto the base, and understand that our peaceful actions were justified as acts of crime prevention. But international law was not respected or enforced.”

Crane, who has two adult children and four grandchildren, has devoted her life in California to serving the poor and homeless as a member of the of Redwood City Catholic Worker community. In a statement last March Crane said, “I see people living in camps, living in cars, and I see working people who don’t have enough income for basic needs like rent, food, or medical care. Then, I think of the money wasted on war-making by the U.S. and NATO nations, and that 3% of the U.S. military budget alone could end starvation around the world.”

At least 29 Germans, as well as two other U.S. citizens and two Dutch nationals have been jailed in Germany for related protest actions against the U.S. nuclear weapons. [5] Crane is the first U.S. women to be imprisoned in Germany in the campaign. Brian Terrell of Maloy, Iowa, was recently ordered by the court in Koblenz, Germany to report to the Wittlich prison on February 26, 2025 to serve a 15-day sentence for a related go-in action in July 2019.

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Germany, Legal | Leave a comment

Last Energy, Texas, Utah allege NRC overstepping in SMR regulation

 Nuclear Newswire 13th Jan 2025

Advanced nuclear reactor company Last Energy joined with two Republican state attorneys general in a lawsuit against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, arguing that some microreactors should not require the commission’s approval.

Utah and Texas are the states involved in the lawsuit, which was filed December 30 in federal court in Texas. The parties’ goal is to accelerate the pace of micro- and small modular reactor deployment in the United States by exempting some new technologies from the traditional licensing process.

According to a Last Energy spokesperson, “This case will determine the threshold at which a nuclear reactor is so safe that it is below concern for federal licensing. There’s no doubt that robust shielding can eliminate exposure to, and the hazards from, nuclear radiation. Congress and former NRC executive director Victor Stello Jr. have both argued for a de minimus standard, and our intent is for the courts to enforce that recommendation.”

An NRC spokesperson said the agency will respond through its filings with the district court.

Background: The nuclear power industry is experiencing a surge of support as Americans are using more energy through the electrification of the economy. The biggest customers in the playing field are large tech companies trying to build additional data centers and support artificial intelligence growth, both power-hungry endeavors…………………………………………………… https://www.ans.org/news/2025-01-13/article-6680/last-energy-texas-utah-allege-nrc-overstepping-in-smr-regulation/

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Destroyed Assange Files: Why Judge’s Rebuke Against Crown Prosecution Service Was So Significant.

“This is a significant victory in a long battle to get the truth out on the involvement of CPS in keeping Julian in arbitrary detention that later turned into political imprisonment, according to UN bodies and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.” 

An unknown number of emails were apparently deleted after one of the U.K.’s lead prosecutor in the case, Paul Close, retired from the CPS. The deletions occurred despite the fact that the case against the award-winning journalist and publisher of the news and transparency website WikiLeaks was still active.

the dissenter, Mohamed Elmaazi, 14 Jan 2025,

A British judge issued an unusually critical rebuke against the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales.

A British judge issued an unusually critical rebuke against the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales (CPS) for its handling of freedom of information requests related to Sweden’s failed attempt to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

The decision by the United Kingdom’s information rights tribunal was made public on January 10. It followed an appeal by Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi, who argued that the CPS failed in its duty to properly explain why a senior prosecutor’s emails were allegedly deleted or destroyed.

In writing the decision for the three-member tribunal, First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) Judge Penrose Foss pierced the veil of deference that is often shown to governmental bodies in England and Wales by the U.K.’s data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Foss was quite blunt in her criticism of the CPS’s handling of multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that Maurizi had submitted as early as 2015. 

It is uncommon for the CPS to be a respondent in FOIA appeals. A review of FTT decisions regarding information rights cases since 2009 shows the CPS as a respondent in 16 out of 3,167 cases (0.5 percent). This includes two appeals filed by Maurizi. 

The decision establishes a precedent that may make it easier for future FOIA requests to be successful in the long run, according to Estelle Dehon KC of London’s Cornerstone Barristers, who represented Maurizi. 

When the information rights tribunal comes across instances of a public authority’s failure to comply with FOIA obligations it “has been known to be quite trenchant in its criticism,” Dehon, told The Dissenter. But it is “unusual in the run of cases that are specific to Stefania’s FOIA requests” for the tribunal to be as critical as it was last week, she added.

“What we can do now is say to the ICO, look at the quality of the search process [conducted by a public body when a FOIA request is made]. If the search process was poor, then that is an indication that the information is being, or might be, held despite the public authority’s claims to the contrary,” Dehon said.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief, told The Dissenter, “This is a significant victory in a long battle to get the truth out on the involvement of CPS in keeping Julian in arbitrary detention that later turned into political imprisonment, according to UN bodies and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.” 

The tribunal ordered the CPS to confirm whether it holds information as to “when, how and why” it destroyed or deleted any “hard or electronic copies of emails” with the Swedish Prosecution Authority by February 21 at 4 p.m. If they have any such information they must provide it to Maurizi or otherwise explain why they are exempt from doing so.

‘Unfounded’ Assumptions Prevented Adequate Search For Records

“Overall, based on the evidence before us, our concern is that over a number of years the CPS has not properly addressed itself at least to recording, if not undertaking, adequate searches in relation to the CPS lawyer’s emails, with the result that, in 2023, when it has purported to answer [Maurizi’s] 2019 [FOIA] Request, it has not been able to give a clear and complete account,” the Tribunal stated in its decision.

The tribunal noted that the CPS’s approach “appears to have been informed by a combination of unfounded and incorrect assumptions or speculation, flawed corporate memory, and unreliable anecdotal instruction, much, but not all, of that resting inevitably in the natural succession of employees through the organisation over time.”

“The cumulative effect of those things, taken together with what we find to be (1) imprecisely worded questions and a failure to drill down into answers, and (2) the absence of any clear and complete audit trail of enquiries and responses at each stage, has very likely prevented adequate searches and has certainly prevented a full and satisfactory account of matters.”

An unknown number of emails were apparently deleted after one of the U.K.’s lead prosecutor in the case, Paul Close, retired from the CPS. The deletions occurred despite the fact that the case against the award-winning journalist and publisher of the news and transparency website WikiLeaks was still active.

…………………………………………………………………….. Taking Aim At the UK’s Data Protection Regulator

The tribunal was quite critical of the ICO for its willingness to accept that every reasonable step had been taken by the prosecution to search for the information Maurizi requested. 

…………………………………………………………………. The tribunal found that claims made by the government were contradictory and lacking in evidence to support them and even found “no evidence as to what searches were undertaken” in relation to Maurizi’s earlier FOIA requests. 

……………………………………….The tribunal’s decision represents the latest victory for Maurizi who has filed multiple FOIA requests and appeals over the U.K. and Swedish governments’ handling of Assange’s extradition case. Dehon summarized the decision succinctly, “The tribunal concluded the CPS likely still holds some information explaining what took place. Hopefully that will finally be disclosed.”

“So far we have learned that the CPS overstepped and dictated how the Swedish prosecutor’s office handled the case with the obvious intent to keep Julian in limbo and maintain for years his unlawful detention,” Hrafnsson said. “The world needs to know who dictated CPS staff to handle the case in this manner both inside the U.K. establishment at its initiative and with input from other governments. It is unacceptable that government files in the U.K. are disappeared in an effort to hide the truth from the public.”

Hrafnsson believes that the missing files, or “at least their fate,” will ultimately “shed light on the real story behind the political persecution of Julian Assange.”

………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://thedissenter.org/destroyed-assange-files-why-judges-rebuke-against-crown-prosecution-service-was-so-significant/

January 16, 2025 Posted by | Legal, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Judge Orders Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to Come Clean on Deleted Assange Docs

A  judge in London has ruled that Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must explain what happened to certain documents in the Julian Assange case that it claims no longer exist, reports Joe Lauria.

By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, January 10, 2025,  https://consortiumnews.com/2025/01/10/judge-orders-cps-to-come-clean-on-deleted-assange-docs/

Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi has been waging a legal battle for seven years against the Crown Prosecution Service to discover the truth about a CPS claim that it deleted a number of documents Maurizi has sought in a Freedom of Information request about the case of Julian Assange.  

Now a judge on the London First-tier Tribunal has ruled that the CPS must explain to Maurizi what it knows about when, why and how the documents were allegedly destroyed. The Jan. 2 ruling was first reported by Maurizi’s newspaper il Fatto Quotidiano on Friday.

Judge Penrose Foss has given the CPS until Feb. 21 to respond or it could be held in contempt of court. 

The ruling says: 

The Crown Prosecution Service must, by no later than 4.00 p.m. on 21 February 2025:

  1. (1)  Confirm to the Appellant whether it held recorded information as to when, how and why any hard or electronic copies of emails referred to in the Appellant’s request to the Crown Prosecution Service of 12 December 2019 were deleted;
  2. (2)  If it did hold such information, either supply the information to the Appellant by 4.00 p.m. on 21 February 2025 or serve a refusal notice under section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, identifying the grounds on which the Crown Prosecution Service relies.A failure to comply with this Substituted Decision Notice could lead to contempt proceedings.”  

Swedish Case

The documents Maurizi seeks were in relation to Sweden’s request to the U.K. for Assange’s extradition. 

Her argument was heard before the three judges of the tribunal on Sept. 24, 2024. The allegedly deleted emails involved a CPS exchange with Sweden about a Swedish prosecutor’s attempt, beginning in 2010, to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher from Britain.  

Assange was wanted at the time in Sweden for questioning during a preliminary investigation into allegations of sexual assault, which was dropped three times, definitively in 2017.  He was never charged. After losing his battle against extradition to Sweden at the U.K. Supreme Court, Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012, fearing that Sweden would send him to the United States.

Assange spent seven years in the embassy protecting himself from arrest until April 2019, when British police dragged him from the diplomatic mission and threw him into London’s maximum security Belmarsh prison.  

It was only when the U.S. realized it would lose on appeal after a four-year extradition battle that the Department of Justice cut a plea deal with Assange who was released on June 24, 2024 and returned to his native Australia. 

Assange had been charged in the United States under the Espionage Act for possessing and publishing defense information, which revealed evidence of U.S. war crimes. Britain took an active role in Assange’s prosecution.

In the earlier Swedish case, the CPS sought to stop Sweden from going to the embassy to question him. 

Seeking to learn more about Britain’s role, Maurizi first made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2015 for all emails between the British and Swedish governments concerning Assange. 

Some of the emails she obtained showed political motivation on the part of the lead British prosecutor, Paul Close.

One email Maurizi obtained from the Swedish Prosecution Authority (SPA) revealed that Close appeared to be pressuring Swedish prosecutors to continue seeking Assange’s extradition instead of dropping the case or questioning him at the Ecuadorian embassy, where Assange had been granted asylum.

“My earlier advice remains, that in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview the defendant [Julian Assange] in the UK,” Close wrote to the SPA, in 2011, according to one of the emails obtained by Maurizi. 

Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, was head of the CPS at this time. He led the service from 2008 to 2013, though it is unknown what role Starmer may have played in this correspondence.

“Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!,” he wrote to Marianne Ny, Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, in 2012. A year after that, Close wrote, “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”

After Maurizi noticed a sizeable gap in the emails released to her she filed another FIOA seeking to obtain the missing emails. 

The CPS first claimed that it had destroyed the emails. It said that when Close retired, his account along with his emails, were automatically destroyed.  

But Maurizi did not buy it.  She asked the court at the hearing last month to order the CPS to turn over “metadata” — data about data, such as file creation and modification dates, email sender and recipient addresses, timestamps, email routing information, keywords, and subject lines — proving the emails really were deleted and when.

“We have NO certainty whatsoever” that the emails were destroyed, Maurizi wrote in a message to Consortium News. Maurizi went to court because she believes the allegedly deleted emails could provide additional evidence of a politically motivated prosecution of Assange.

She also wants metadata on a CPS document that it says is from 2012 explaining the CPS’ email deletion policy, which was only sent to her in 2023. 

The supposed 2012 policy document says that 30 days after an email account is disabled, the “email data” associated with it “will be automatically deleted and no longer accessible.” 

“How is it possible that they provided this document only in 2023, after multiple requests, multiple appeals, no-one ever mentioned it or knew about it?” Maurizi told CN.  

Such a policy does not explain why thousands of emails related to an ongoing case would be deleted.

Denied on the Metadata

In order to figure out whether the 2012 policy document on deletions is genuine, Maurizi requested the relevant metadata of the file. She wanted to make sure it was not created years later as an attempt at retroactively justifying the deletion of Close’s emails. 

Judge Foss for the Tribunal, however, ruled against Maurizi on the release of the metadata. Foss ruled

“In our view there was nothing in the letter or spirit of the 2019 Request as to when, how and why the emails of the CPS lawyer were deleted, which required the CPS to disclose the metadata of any document which substantiated the information it provided in response to that request. […]

It would be extraordinary, in our view, if every time a public authority was presented with a request for information recorded in such a way as to have meant that the creation of that record generated metadata, the request should be taken inevitably to require the metadata behind the form of record.”

Unsatisfactory Explanations

It is simply “not credible” Maurizi’s lawyer argued during the September hearing that Close neither sent nor received emails to Swedish prosecutors when Sweden issued the arrest warrant for Assange; when Assange took refuge in the embassy; and when he was granted asylum by Ecuador.

“[I]t has never been established that there was anything untoward in those gaps, that there were emails that weren’t published,” argued Rory Dunlop KC, on behalf of the prosecution authority, during his closing remarks.

“The CPS are keen to make clear that it has never been accepted and [it has] never been established one way or another,” he insisted. Over the years, in response to FOIA requests and appeals, the CPS’ position on the deletion of Close’s account has varied.

For example, in 2017, after Maurizi challenged the gap in the emails, a CPS employee said in a witness statement that, “If there ever existed further emails they were not printed off and filed” and therefore “are no longer in the possession of the CPS.”  


According to an article by Maurizi in  il Fatto Quotidiano, five years later, the CPS said in response to a separate FOIA request from Labour MP John McDonnell that “deletion of an email account of a former member of staff at the time would not have led to the deletion of emails held on the case file.”

The CPS also admitted to McDonnell that they are only aware of one other case in the last decade which resulted in the premature destruction of case materials, according to Maurizi’s article. 

The Sept. 24 tribunal also heard that the CPS’ Records Management Manual states that general correspondence “should be retained in the case file within five years from the date of the most recent correspondence,” which would not allow for deletion upon retirement by the prosecutor on the case.

Mohamed Elmaazi contributed to this article.

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Lawsuit challenges NRC on SMR regulation

Friday, 10 January 2025, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/lawsuit-challenges-nrc-on-smr-regulation

The States of Texas and Utah and microreactor developer Last Energy Inc are challenging the US regulator over its application of a rule it adopted in 1956 to small modular reactors and research and test reactors.

Under the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Utilization Facility Rule, all US reactors are required to obtain NRC construction and operating licences regardless of their size, the amount of nuclear material they use or the risks associated with their operation. The plaintiffs say this imposes “complicated, costly, and time-intensive requirements that even the smallest and safest SMRs and microreactors – down to those not strong enough to power an LED lightbulb” must satisfy to secure the necessary licences. This does not only affect microreactors: existing research and test reactors such as those at the universities in both Texas and Utah face “significant costs” to maintain their NRC operating licences, the plaintiffs say.

In the filing, Last Energy – developer of the PWR-20 microreactor – says it has invested “tens of millions of dollars” in developing small nuclear reactor technology, including USD2 million on manufacturing efforts in Texas alone, and has agreements to develop more than 50 nuclear reactor facilities across Europe. But although it has a “preference” to build in the USA, “Last Energy nonetheless has concluded it is only feasible to develop its projects abroad in order to access alternative regulatory frameworks that incorporate a de minimis standard for nuclear power permitting”.

Noting that only three new commercial reactors have been built in the USA over the past 28 years, the plaintiffs say building a new commercial reactor of any size in the country has become “virtually impossible” due to the rule, which it says is a “misreading” of the NRC’s own scope of authority.

They are asking the court to set aside the rule, “at least as applied to certain small, non-hazardous reactors”, and exempt their research reactors and Last Energy’s small modular reactors (SMRs) from the commission’s licensing requirements.

Houston, Texas-based law firm King & Spalding said the lawsuit, if it is successful, would “mark a turning point” in the US nuclear regulatory framework – but warns that it could also create greater uncertainty as advanced nuclear technologies get closer to commercial readiness.

“Regardless the outcome, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit highlights the challenges in applying the Utilization Facility Rule to the advanced nuclear reactors now under development in the US,” the company said in in analysis released on 9 January.

But the NRC is already addressing the issue: in 2023, it began the rulemaking process to establish an optional technology-inclusive regulatory framework for new commercial advanced nuclear reactors, which would include risk-informed and performance-based methods “flexible and practicable for application to a variety of advanced reactor technologies”. SECY-23-0021: Proposed Rule: Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors is currently open for public comment until 28 February, and the NRC has said it expects to issue a final rule “no later than the end of 2027”.

The lawsuit has been filed with the US District Court in the Eastern District of Texas.

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Legal, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Ireland formally joins ICJ genocide case against Israel

Ireland is the latest country to join South Africa in attempting to hold Israel accountable at the International Court of Justice in the Hague

News Desk, JAN 7, 2025,  https://thecradle.co/articles/ireland-formally-joins-icj-genocide-case-against-israel

Ireland has submitted a declaration to join South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide.

“Ireland, invoking Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, filed in the Registry of the Court a declaration of intervention in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip,” or South Africa versus Israel, the ICJ said in a statement on 7 January.

Under Article 63, any state party to a convention that is under judicial consideration has the right to intervene, making the ICJ’s interpretation of that convention binding on them as well.

Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin announced in December his government would join the ICJ case.

Israel closed its embassy in Dublin in response, while the Israeli Foreign Minister, Gideon Saar, described Ireland’s Prime Minister, Simon Harris, as antisemitic.

Harris responded by saying, “You know what I think is reprehensible? Killing children, I think that’s reprehensible. You know what I think is reprehensible? Seeing the scale of civilian deaths that we’ve seen in Gaza. You know what I think is reprehensible? People are being left to starve, and humanitarian aid is not flowing.”

US-Palestinian entrepreneur and art curator Faisal Saleh said he has begun efforts to lease the closed Israeli embassy building and convert it into a Palestinian museum.

“This will be a very powerful symbolic move where Palestinian art replaces the genocidal entity representation in Ireland,” Saleh told Anadolu Ajansi on 3 January.

Israel began its war on Gaza in October 2023, placing the strip under total siege and unleashing a horrific bombing campaign targeting Palestinian civilians and Hamas fighters alike.

In December of that year, South Africa filed an application instituting proceedings against Israel, claiming its actions in Gaza were in violation of the Genocide Convention.

Several countries have since joined the case, including Nicaragua, Colombia, Libya, Mexico, Palestine, Spain, and Turkiye.

In fifteen months of war, Israeli forces have killed over 46,000 Palestinians in Gaza, mostly women and children, while injuring over 105,000.

The campaign has laid waste to much of the enclave, including homes, mosques, schools, hospitals, universities, agricultural land, and water infrastructure, making Gaza largely unlivable.

Israeli soldiers and politicians have declared it their goal to forcibly expel all 2.3 million Palestinians from Gaza and to build Jewish settlements on the ruins of the destroyed Palestinian cities and refugee camps.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Ireland, Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

Japanese yakuza leader pleads guilty to trafficking nuclear materials from Myanmar

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/09/takeshi-ebisawa-yakuza-leader-nuclear-materials-myanmar

US authorities charged Takeshi Ebisawa with conspiring to traffic nuclear materials from Myanmar for expected use by Iran in nuclear weapons, handling nuclear material sourced from Myanmar and seeking to sell it to fund an illicit arms deal, US authorities have said.

Yakuza leader Takeshi Ebisawa and a co-defendant had previously been charged in April 2022 with drug trafficking and firearms offences, and both were remanded.

He was then additionally charged in February 2024 with conspiring to sell weapons-grade nuclear material and lethal narcotics from Myanmar, and to purchase military weaponry on behalf of an armed insurgent group, prosecutors said.

The military weaponry to be part of the arms deal included surface-to-air missiles, the indictment alleged.

“As he admitted in federal court today, Takeshi Ebisawa brazenly trafficked nuclear material, including weapons-grade plutonium, out of Burma,” acting US attorney Edward Kim said on Wednesday, using another name for Myanmar.

“At the same time, he worked to send massive quantities of heroin and methamphetamine to the United States in exchange for heavy-duty weaponry such as surface-to-air missiles to be used on battlefields in Burma.”

Prosecutors alleged that Ebisawa, 60, “brazenly” moved material containing uranium and weapons-grade plutonium, alongside drugs, from Myanmar.

From 2020, Ebisawa boasted to an undercover officer he had access to large quantities of nuclear materials that he sought to sell, providing photographs of materials alongside Geiger counters registering radiation.

During a sting operation including undercover agents, Thai authorities assisted US investigators in seizing two powdery yellow substances that the defendant described as “yellowcake.”

“The (US) laboratory determined that the isotope composition of the plutonium found in the Nuclear Samples is weapons-grade, meaning that the plutonium, if produced in sufficient quantities, would be suitable for use in a nuclear weapon,” the Justice Department said in its statement at the time.

One of Ebisawa’s co-conspirators claimed they “had available more than 2,000 kilograms (4,400 pounds) of Thorium-232 and more than 100 kilograms of uranium in the compound U3O8 – referring to a compound of uranium commonly found in the uranium concentrate powder known as ’yellowcake’.”

The indictment claimed Ebisawa had suggested using the proceeds of the sale of nuclear material to fund weapons purchases on behalf of an unnamed ethnic insurgent group in Myanmar.

Ebisawa faces up to 20 years’ imprisonment for the trafficking of nuclear materials internationally.

Prosecutors describe Ebisawa as a “leader of the Yakuza organised crime syndicate, a highly organised, transnational Japanese criminal network that operates around the world (and whose) criminal activities have included large-scale narcotics and weapons trafficking.”

Sentencing will be determined by the judge in the case at a later date, prosecutors said.

January 10, 2025 Posted by | Japan, Legal, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Japanese crime boss admits to conspiring to sell nuclear material to Iran

 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/9/japanese-crime-boss-admits-to-conspiring-to-sell-nuclear-material-to-iran

Takeshi Ebisawa faces a maximum punishment of life in prison after pleading guilty to six counts in a Manhattan court.

A Japanese crime boss has pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell nuclear material from Myanmar to Iran along with drug trafficking and weapons offences, authorities in the United States have said.

Takeshi Ebisawa, 60, a member of the yakuza, entered a guilty plea to six counts in federal court in Manhattan on Wednesday, the US Department of Justice said in a statement.

He is set to be sentenced on April 9.

According to prosecutors, Ebisawa in 2020 told an undercover agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and a DEA source that he had acquitted a large quantity of thorium and uranium that he wished to sell.

In response to Ebisawa’s repeated inquiries, the undercover agent agreed to help Ebisawa broker the sale of the nuclear materials to an associate who was posing as an Iranian general, prosecutors said.

Ebisawa then offered to supply the undercover associate with plutonium that would be even “better” and more “powerful” than uranium for making nuclear weapons, according to prosecutors.

A powdery yellow substance that Ebisawa’s co-conspirators showed to undercover agents was later determined in a laboratory analysis to contain detectable quantities of uranium, thorium and plutonium, the Justice Department said.

Ebisawa also conspired to broker the purchase of US-made surface-to-air missiles and heavy-duty weaponry to arm multiple ethnic armed groups in Myanmar, and to accept large quantities of heroin and methamphetamine as partial payment for the arms, according to prosecutors.

US officials said they conducted Ebisawa’s arrest and prosecution in cooperation with law enforcement partners in Indonesia, Japan and Thailand.

“Today’s plea should serve as a stark reminder to those who imperil our national security by trafficking weapons-grade plutonium and other dangerous materials on behalf of organized criminal syndicates that the Department of Justice will hold you accountable to the fullest extent of the law,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

Ebisawa, who was previously charged in 2022 with international drug trafficking and firearms offences, faces possible life imprisonment for the most serious of the charges.

January 9, 2025 Posted by | Japan, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »