nuclear-news

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

Kingston Fossil Plant and Oakridge Nuclear Facility – an unholy alliance of radioactive pollution,

While no one was killed by the 2008 coal ash spill itself, dozens of workers have died from illnesses that emerged during or after the cleanup. Hundreds of other workers are sick from respiratory, cardiac, neurological, and blood disorders, as well as cancers.

The apparent mixing of fossil fuel and nuclear waste streams underscores the long relationship between the Kingston and Oak Ridge facilities.

Between the 1950s and 1980s, so much cesium-137 and mercury was released into the Clinch from Oak Ridge that the Department of Energy, or DOE, said that the river and its feeder stream “served as pipelines for contaminants.” Yet TVA and its contractors, with the blessing of both state and federal regulators, classified all 4 million tons of material they recovered from the Emory as “non-hazardous.”

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analysis confirms that the ash that was left in the river was “found to be commingled with contamination from the Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation site.

For nearly a century, both Oak Ridge and TVA treated their waste with less care than most families treat household garbage. It was often dumped into unlined, and sometimes unmarked, pits that continue to leak into waterways. For decades, Oak Ridge served as the Southeast’s burial ground for nuclear waste. It was stored within watersheds and floodplains that fed the Clinch River. But exactly where and how this waste was buried has been notoriously hard to track.

A Legacy of Contamination, How the Kingston coal ash spill unearthed a nuclear nightmare, Grist By Austyn Gaffney on Dec 15, 2020  This story was published in partnership with the Daily Yonder.

In 2009, App Thacker was hired to run a dredge along the Emory River in eastern Tennessee. Picture anindustrialized fleet modeled after Huck Finn’s raft: Nicknamed Adelyn, Kylee, and Shirley, the blue, flat-bottomed boats used mechanical arms called cutterheads to dig up riverbeds and siphon the excavated sediment into shoreline canals. The largest dredge, a two-story behemoth called the Sandpiper, had pipes wide enough to swallow a push lawnmower. Smaller dredges like Thacker’s scuttled behind it, scooping up excess muck like fish skimming a whale’s corpse. They all had the same directive: Remove the thick grey sludge that clogged the Emory.

The sludge was coal ash, the waste leftover when coal is burned to generate electricity. Twelve years ago this month, more than a billion gallons of wet ash burst from a holding pond monitored by the region’s major utility, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA. Thacker, a heavy machinery operator with Knoxville’s 917 union, became one of hundreds of people that TVA contractors hired to clean up the spill. For about four years, Thacker spent every afternoon driving 35 miles from his home to arrive in time for his 5 p.m. shift, just as the makeshift overhead lights illuminating the canals of ash flicked on.

Dredging at night was hard work. The pump inside the dredge clogged repeatedly, so Thacker took off his shirt and entered water up to his armpits to remove rocks, tree limbs, tires, and other debris, sometimes in below-freezing temperatures. Soon, ringworm-like sores crested along his arms, interwoven with his fading red and blue tattoos. Thacker’s supervisors gave him a cream for the skin lesions, and he began wearing long black cow-birthing gloves while he unclogged pumps. While Thacker knew that the water was contaminated — that was the point of the dredging — he felt relatively safe. After all, TVA was one of the oldest and most respected employers in the state, with a sterling reputation for worker safety.

Then, one night, the dredging stopped.

Sometime between December 2009 and January 2010, roughly halfway through the final, 500-foot-wide section of the Emory designated for cleanup, operators turned off the pumps that sucked the ash from the river. For a multi-billion dollar remediation project, this order was unprecedented. The dredges had been operating 24/7 in an effort to clean up the disaster area as quickly as possible, removing roughly 3,000 cubic yards of material — almost enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool — each day. But official reports from TVA show that the dredging of the Emory encountered unusually high levels of contamination: Sediment samples showed that mercury levels were three times higher in the river than they were in coal ash from the holding pond that caused the disaster.

Then there was the nuclear waste. Continue reading →

May 3, 2025 Posted by | employment, environment, history, legal, PERSONAL STORIES, politics, Reference, safety, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

The ICJ, Israel and the Gaza Blockade

“The humanitarian aid system is facing total collapse. This collapse is by design.”

April 30, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark , https://theaimn.net/the-icj-israel-and-the-gaza-blockade/

The murder and starvation of populations in real time, subject to rolling coverage and commentary, is not usually the done thing. These are the sorts of activities kept quiet and secluded in their vicious execution. In the Gaza Strip, these actions are taking place with a confident, almost brazen assuredness.  

Israel has the means, the weapons and the sheer gumption to do so, and Palestinians in Gaza find themselves with few options for survival. The strategic objectives of the Jewish state, involving, for instance, the elimination of Hamas, have been shown to be nonsensically irrelevant, given that they are unattainable. Failed policies of de facto annexation and occupation are re-entering the national security argot.  

In yet another round of proceedings, this time initiated by a UN General Assembly resolution, the International Court of Justice is hearing from an array of nations and bodies (40 states and four international organisations) regarding Israel’s complete blockade of Gaza since March 2. Also featuring prominently are Israel’s efforts to attack the United Nations itself, notably UNRWA, the relief agency charged with aiding Palestinians.

As counsel for the Palestinians, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh outlined the central grievances. The restrictions on “the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, [Israel’s] attacks on the United Nations and on UN officials, property and premises, its deliberate obstruction of the organisation’s work and its attempt to destroy an entire UN subsidiary organ” lacked precedent “in the history of the organisation.” Being not only “antithetical to a peace-loving state”, such actions were “a fundamental repudiation by Israel of its charter obligations owed both to the organisation and to all UN members and of the international rule of law.

Israel had further closed all relevant crossings into the Strip and seemingly planned “to annex 75 square kilometres of Rafah, one-fifth of Gaza, to [its] so-called buffer zone, permanently. This, together with Israel’s continuing maritime blockade, cuts Gaza and its people off from direct aid and assistance and from the rest of the world.”

The submission by Ní Ghrálaigh went on to document the plight of Palestinian children, 15,600 of whom had perished, with tens of thousands more injured, missing or traumatised. Gaza had become “home to the largest cohort of child amputees in the world, the largest orphan crisis in modern history, and a whole generation in danger of suffering from stunting, causing irreparable physical and cognitive impairments.”

South Africa, which already has an application before the Court accusing Israel of violating the UN Genocide Convention, pointed to the international prohibition against “starvation as a method of warfare, including under siege or blockade.” Its representative Jaymion Hendricks insisted that Israel had “deployed the full range of techniques of hunger and starvation” against “the protected Palestinian population, which it holds under unlawful occupation.” The decision to expel UNRWA and relevant UN agencies should be reversed, and access to food, medicine and humanitarian aid resumed.  

In a chilling submission to the Court, Zane Dangor, director general of South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation, detected a scheme in the cruelty. “The humanitarian aid system is facing total collapse. This collapse is by design.”

Israel’s response, one increasingly rabid to the obligations of humanitarian and international law, was best stated by its Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar. In announcing that Israel would not participate in oral proceedings derided as a “circus”, he restated the long held position that UNRWA was “an organisation infiltrated beyond repair by terrorism.” Courts were once again being abused “to try and force Israel to cooperate with an organisation that is infested with Hamas terrorists, and it won’t happen.”

Then came an agitated flurry of accusations shamelessly evoking the message from Émile Zola’s “J’Accuse” note of 1898, penned during the convulsions of the Dreyfus Affair: “I accuse UNRWA. I accuse the UN. I accuse the Secretary General, I accuse all those that weaponize international law and its institutions in order to deprive the most attacked country in the world, Israel, of its most basic right to defend itself.”

The continuing blackening of UNRWA was also assured by Amir Weissbrod of Israel’s foreign ministry, who reiterated the claims that the organisation had employed 1,400 Palestinians with militant links. Furthermore, some had taken part in Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel. That such a small number had participated was itself striking and should have spared the organisation the savaging it received. But Israel has longed for the expulsion of an entity that is an accusing reminder of an ongoing, profane policy of oppression and dispossession.

In her moving address to the Court, Ní Ghrálaigh urged the justices to direct Israel to allow aid to enter Gaza and re–engage the offices of UNRWA. Doing so might permit the re-mooring of international law, a ship increasingly put off course by the savage war in Gaza. The cold, somewhat fanatical reaction to these proceedings in The Hague by Israel’s officials suggest that anchoring international obligations, notably concerning Palestinian civilians, is off the list.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Atrocities, Legal | Leave a comment

Victory for Greenpeace Luxembourg against EDF in court transparency ruling

Thomas Toussaint – Adapted by RTL Today, Update: 28.04.2025 ,
https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/2297912.html

In a landmark decision for nuclear transparency, the Strasbourg administrative court has ordered energy giant EDF to disclose information previously kept under wraps about the Cattenom nuclear power station, marking a major victory for Greenpeace Luxembourg.

Greenpeace went to court to challenge EDF’s refusal to provide information on “the possible use within the Cattenom nuclear centre of parts manufactured by the Italian company Tectubi, their destination and their conformity.”

The parts had previously been inspected by Italy’s Nuclear Safety Authority, which identified shortcomings in their production process.

The suspect parts were alleged to have been used to address the well-known issue of stress corrosion, detected in several nuclear power plants, including Cattenom. Greenpeace therefore requested to be informed of the possible use of these parts at the Moselle power station.

In response, the plant’s management refused, citing trade secrecy under the Code of Public Administration Relations. This left Greenpeace with no alternative but to turn to the administrative court in July 2023.

In a ruling on 24 April 2025, the Strasbourg court confirmed that the documents requested by Greenpeace Luxembourg were not subject to secrecy and ordered the director of Cattenom to provide the information within two months. EDF has also been ordered to pay €1,500 to Greenpeace Luxembourg.

“The decision by the administrative court is an important victory for transparency and nuclear safety,” said Roger Spautz, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace Luxembourg. “EDF cannot continue to conceal crucial information regarding reactor safety, especially when issues such as stress corrosion and cracking are concerned.”

April 30, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, legal | Leave a comment

What’s Legally Allowed in War –  Gaza a dress rehearsal for U.S. war on China.

The claim that Israel has adhered to the laws of war is extremely contentious.

1977, an international agreement explicitly prohibited the intentional targeting of civilians.

Gaza not only looks like a dress rehearsal for the kind of combat U.S. soldiers may face. It is a test of the American public’s tolerance for the levels of death and destruction that such kinds of warfare entail….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Gaza, Israel, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

GOP states sue NRC to deregulate SMR licensing

17 Apr 25, https://beyondnuclear.org/gop-states-sue-nrc-to-deregulate-smr-licensing/

The GOP governors and their respective offices of state attorneys general (in one case the top GOP state legislators) in Texas, Utah, Florida, Louisiana, and Arizona have joined together with a number of fledgling nuclear start-up companies still in the design development phase for new, unproven small modular reactors (SMR) in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Tyler Division against the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).*

The lawsuit argues that reactor licensing requirements for  microreactors and SMRs—with power outputs ranging from 1 to 300 megawatts electric (MWe)—do not need to be as stringent on safety requirements as the nation’s  predecessor of behemoth commercial nuclear power plants in operation today. The plaintiffs claim, that because SMRs are significantly smaller they are inherently safer such that states regulatory authorities in collaboration with the nuclear industry would be sufficient to take control of licensing of SMR development from the NRC. This would include reactor independent design safety certification and construction. The plaintiffs have further claimed that offsite radiological emergency planning and environmental protection from a nuclear accident would no longer be necessary much farther than the reactor site exclusion fence line and can be safely operated within denser population zones.

This premise ignores the fact that the intent of the modular design allows for multiple units to be co-located, closely congregated and even operated from a single control room on a power scale potentially larger than even current conventional commercially  light water nuclear reactor stations generating thousands of megawatts.  Numerous common mode failures from singular, simultaneous and cascading events including internal design and material failures, external events including severe floods, earthquakes, and deliberate acts of malice cannot be totally ruled out.

With various SMR design concepts still in the development phase and some launching pilot ventures in the United States, they still face numerous challenges to demonstrate operational safety, obtain necessary approvals, build supply chains that including higher enriched nuclear fuel and develop a customer base. But the same issues of failure to control projected cost-of-completion and meet projected time-to-completion have already arisen in SMR development even to meet their goals on paper.

For example, the US Department of Energy’s much touted  pet project in Idaho, NuScale Power’s 50 MWe VOYGR™ SMR power plant is the only design thus far that managed to eke out a contorted “conditional” design safety certification in 2023 from an obliging NRC and build its projected market with a power purchase agreement with the Utah Municipal Association of Power Suppliers (UAMPS) in several western states. The 50 MWe certified design itself instead turned out to be a “house-of-cards” and collapsed when uncontrolled costs and delays for the implementation of the design proved uneconomical for commercial production.  Nevertheless, the state and the nascent industry plaintiffs are proceeding with their argument that it is NRC’s regulations and overly safety-oriented bureaucratic barriers that are stifling the deployment of  otherwise innovative and “inherently safe”  reactors.

The industry and its supporters have further blamed the NRC’s burdensome regulations as responsible for the collapse of the nation’s first attempt at its so-called “nuclear renaissance” with advanced Generation III reactor projects launched by the congressional passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT). In fact, EPACT was tailored by Congress and a very willing NRC to streamline a new combined operating license process (COL), a one-stop construction and power operations permit. EPACT bolstered the industry launch with billions of dollars in federal production tax credits and loan guarantees. EPACT  also  ramrodded  a twenty year extension of the Price-Anderson Act further indemnifying nuclear corporations with limited liability from the potentially astronomical costly radiological damages of severe nuclear accidents by the so-called “inherently safe” Generation III light water reactor designs.

Despite Congress’ thorough greasing of the skid for a new generation of reactor development and deployment, by 2007, the industry had proposed  34+ new units cited to the Congressional Research Service for construction. Of the pledged units, the industry submitted COL applications to the NRC for 25 units. The NRC  and industry efforts managed to approve COL permits for 14 units. Of those 14 units, the nuclear industry (even with the taxpayer backed federal loan guarantees and tax credits) only risked the financing for the construction of four units (Vogtle 3 & 4 and V.C. Summer 2 & 3). Only two units of the four units managed to complete construction and go into commercial operation in 2023 and 2024—more than double their original estimated cost-of-completion (roughly $36+ billion for Vogtle Units 3 & 4 in Georgia) and seven years behind schedule. The V.C. Summer units proposed for South Carolina were abandoned mid-construction in July 2017 with uncontrolled costs and recurring delays resulting in nearly $10 billion in sunk costs largely passed onto captured state electric ratepayers. The remainder of the industry applications were suspended or withdrawn by the utilities without the financial confidence to break ground for construction.

In our view, after curtailing streamlining the new licensing process, the NRC steamrolled new combined construction and operations licensing over the public’s due process to fully participate in the process. However, rather than solely fault the NRC, it was the historic, recurrence of uncontrollable cost overruns and prolonged delays in the new reactor licensing process, environmental reviews and unreliable reactor time to completion of construction that actually stifled the deployment of new reactor technologies internationally and not at all unique to the United States and NRC licensing oversight.

This is now compounded by Congress’ 2024 passage of the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act to fundamentally remove any pretense of the NRC  mission statement’s focus from,

“The NRC licenses and regulates the nation’s civilian use of radioactive materials to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the common defense and security and to protect the environment”

to now,

“The NRC protects public health and safety and advances the nation’s common defense and security by enabling the safe and secure use and deployment of civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials through efficient and reliable licensing, oversight, and regulation for the benefit of society and the environment.”

The nuclear industry, including the plaintiffs Last Energy, Next Generation, Deep Fission and  Valar Atomics are now calling upon the US federal district court to rule upon a very dangerous and inestimably expensive course to deregulate federal control of commercial nuclear power development essentially by exemption and turn it over to the nuclear industry to instruct the individual states.

*CORRECTION: The two top legislators for the GOP majority Arizona State House [Senate President Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert) and House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-Goodyear)] separately filed as parties in the NRC law suit.

April 21, 2025 Posted by | legal, USA | Leave a comment

Lawsuit on Nuclear Regulation

 Nuclear Start-up Valar Atomics is suing the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), claiming in essence that the NRC doesn’t have the right
to regulate small reactors, and instead the states should have oversight.

Let’s skip over for a moment what a nightmare it would be to have 50
different regulators to deal with just for one country. Their claim —
that small reactors are not capable of accidents posing public health and
safety concerns — is dangerous baloney. It seems after decades of
fighting rampant radiophobia from anti-nuclear activists and scared
normies, the pro-nuclear community must now also contend with a new
problem: nukebros who have become too cavalier about radiation.

 Elemental 15th April 2025

April 18, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

The top Republicans in the Arizona Legislature want the federal government to cut back regulations on the nuclear energy industry.

Arizona’s top GOP lawmakers are suing a federal commission to deregulate nuclear energy

KJZZ | By Camryn Sanchez,  April 9, 2025, https://www.kjzz.org/politics/2025-04-09/arizonas-top-gop-lawmakers-are-suing-a-federal-commission-to-deregulate-nuclear-energy

The top Republicans in the Arizona Legislature want the federal government to cut back regulations on the nuclear energy industry.

Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert) and House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-Goodyear) are proponents of small modular reactors, or SMRs, which are currently subject to the same standards as much larger nuclear reactors.

Specifically, the federal rule – created by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – requires construction and operating licenses for all reactors in the U.S.

Petersen claims that federal rule is unlawful.

He and Montenegro are now parties to a lawsuit against the NRC, along with Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Utah and a handful of other states and some energy companies.

“This is a textbook case of Washington bureaucrats getting in the way of American progress,” Montenegro said in a statement. “America is behind the modern world when it comes to nuclear advancement. We have had this technology for decades, yet the NRC has not let us advance, stifling innovation. Arizona House Republicans are pushing back. We’re standing up for American innovation, lower energy costs, and true energy independence.”

Petersen said if the government cuts down on regulations over nuclear energy, it will open the door for Arizona utilities to get into the market and ultimately provide affordable energy to residents.

“Arizona’s utility companies want to pursue SMRs, but their hands are tied with red tape, as it could take decades and an unreasonable amount of money to establish plants under the current rule,” Petersen said in a statement.

“I’m hopeful that through this litigation, we will be able to eliminate unnecessary and outdated regulations to unleash greater American energy production, as President Trump has promised is a top priority for his administration. This lawsuit is a first step on a pathway to energy independence,” he added.

April 13, 2025 Posted by | Legal | Leave a comment

Deloitte seeks to avoid liability over US nuclear fiasco.

 Deloitte has asked a US judge to throw out demands that it compensate
shareholders who lost money in the collapse of one of the country’s
largest nuclear power projects, in a case that has exposed the inner
workings of the Big Four audit firm.

Recently filed documents detail Deloitte’s work auditing the South Carolina utility Scana before the company abandoned construction of two nuclear reactors that had fallen far
behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. The 2017 fiasco led to
the cut-price sale of Scana to a rival utility, the bankruptcy of the
construction group Westinghouse and jail time for Scana’s former chief
executive, who pleaded guilty to misleading regulators.

A class-action lawsuit on behalf of Scana shareholders alleges Deloitte helped the company
hide burgeoning problems at the VC Summer nuclear project by signing off on
financial statements that indicated it would be completed on time. In fact,
an internal whistleblower at Scana had claimed as early as 2015 that
Westinghouse was impossibly far behind, and Deloitte failed to follow other
red flags, the lawsuit claims.

 FT 3rd April 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/89b10731-fcd0-4854-8bb5-1f4067f1bba2

April 6, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

  Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) rejects intervenors’ Palisades “zombie” nuke reactor restart petition & hearing request

March 31, 2025, https://beyondnuclear.org/aslb-rejects-intervenors-palisades-petition-hearing-request/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJb8IBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUI-Ts2_T9B3gIRG0gqC6X5YA6QiXdFZmRzx_2Rrj7VotgN7tfLIdp0y5A_aem_zNePcdLiZVSia6c3bnJ4zg

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Atomic Safety (sic) and Licensing Board (ASLB) has struck again. Per usual, the three-administrative law judge panel (formerly known as hearing examiners) has rejected all contentions re: health, safety, security, and the environment raised by an environmental coalition, denying hearings on the merits. Such rulings reflect the ASLB’s very well earned kangaroo court reputation. Not only is the NRC staff captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate, but so too is NRC’s ASLB.

See the 71-page ASLB ruling, here.

The coalition — Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago, and Three Mile Island Alert of Pennsylvania — did get the NRC ASLB to acknowledge its legal standing, although the NRC staff sought to block most of the groups. Some of the members/supporters who provided legal standing to the groups opposed by the NRC staff for establishing legal standing happen to live within less than a mile of the Palisades atomic reactor, and thus are very much in harm’s way.

Attorneys Terry Lodge of Toledo, Ohio, and Wally Taylor of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, serve as the coalition’s legal counsel. Coalition expert witnesses include Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer of Fairewinds, as well as Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, a world renowned advocate for renewable energy as the most time- and cost-effective pathway to climate mitigation. This means nuclear power is an opportunity cost, significantly hampering desperately needed reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, as soon as possible.

The coalition has resisted Holtec International’s scheme to restart the nearly 60-year old “zombie” atomic reactor at Palisades nuclear power plant since the get-go, on April 20, 2022, when Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer first floated the trial balloon of indefinite, continued operations, a month to the day before previous owner Entergy permanently shut down the reactor. Palisades was designed in the mid-1960s, and ground was broken on its construction in 1967.

Such a restart of a closed for good atomic reactor is unprecedented. It is also unneeded, insanely expensive for the public, and extremely risky. Palisades has been an atomic lemon since it was fired up in 1971, and is now dangerously age-degraded, after 51 years of problem-plagued operations, and three years of neglect by Holtec of safety-significant systems, structures, and components, such as the now dangerously degraded steam generator tubes. Holtec neglected steam generator tube maintenance for two years (2022-2024), a “rookie error” according to the coalition’s expert witness, Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds. But this rookie error, Gundersen, points out, could result in a catastrophic reactor core meltdown, if and when NRC allows Holtec to restart Palisades with mere BAND-AID fixes on the breakdown phase steam generator tubes.

The coalition will appeal the ASLB’s absurd ruling to the commissioners of the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Once the NRC Commissioners rule against us too, we will have exhausted all administrative remedies. At that point, we will file an appeal to the federal courts.

Although the ASLB has rejected all previous coalition contentions, the three-judge panel did not terminate the licensing proceeding. This is because the coalition amended certain contentions, and introduced new ones, based on the recent publication, in late Jaunary 2025, by NRC staff of a draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact regarding the “zombie” reactor restart scheme.

However, on March 28, 2025 — the 46th annual commemoration of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 meltdown in Pennsylvania — both the NRC staff, as well as Holtec International, opposed all of the coalition’s new and amended environmental contentions, as well.

The coalition will continue to defend its amended and new environmental contentions at every opportunity, as well. Our deadline to do so is later this week.

April 5, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Finds Ukraine Responsible for Odessa Massacre

 https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/echr-finds-ukraine-responsible-for?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=552010&post_id=160179175&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=nxsz&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The ECHR’s appraisal of criminal investigations into perpetrators of the Odessa massacre, and all the officials who failed in their most basic duties on May 2nd 2014, was absolutely scathing, the details pointing to a very clear, deliberate state-level coverup.

internal documents attesting that security measures had in fact been undertaken were found to have been forged. 

the lethal incineration of anti-Maidan activists in May 2014 was an intentional and premeditated act of mass murder, conceived and directed by Kiev’s US-installed far-right government. This interpretation is amply reinforced by testimonies from a Ukrainian parliamentary commission, instituted in the massacre’s immediate aftermath.

(While the video above has been censored. This video below is allowed, as it contains a more favoured view of theUkrainian government.

Kit Klarenberg, Mar 30, 2025, https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/echr-finds-ukraine-responsible-for?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=552010&post_id=160179175&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=nxsz&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

On March 13th, a bombshell judgment by the European Court of Human Rights found the Ukrainian government guilty of grave human rights breaches over the May 2nd 2014 Odessa massacre, in which dozens of Russian-speaking anti-Maidan activists were forced into the city’s Trade Unions House and burned alive by violent ultranationalist thugs. The explosive findings unambiguously uncover a concerted conspiracy by Ukrainian authorities to facilitate and exacerbate the grotesque killing, then insulate its perpetrators, and officials and state agencies which helped it happen, from justice.

In all, 42 people were killed and hundreds injured as a result of the blaze, a bloody bookend to the so-called “Maidan revolution” that saw Ukraine’s democratically-elected president  Viktor Yanukovych deposed in a Western-orchestrated coup months earlier. Ever since Ukrainian officials and legacy media outlets have consistently framed the deaths as a tragic accident, with some figures even blaming anti-Maidan protesters themselves for starting the blaze. That notion is comprehensively incinerated by the verdict, which was delivered by a team of seven European judges, including a Ukrainian.

“Relevant authorities’ failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the violence in Odessa…to stop that violence after its outbreak, to ensure timely rescue measures for people trapped in the fire, and to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events” means Kiev was found guilty of egregious European Convention on Human Rights breaches. Moreover, numerous incendiary passages make clear industrial scale “negligence” by officials on the day, and ever after, “went beyond an error of judgment or carelessness.”

For example, the ECHR found deployment of fire engines to the site was “deliberately delayed for 40 minutes” – the local fire station being just one kilometer away – and police stood by passively as the building and its occupants burned, refusing to “help evacuate people…promptly and safely.” Moreover, Ukrainian authorities made “no efforts whatsoever” or “any meaningful attempt” to prevent or disrupt the skirmishes between pro- and anti-Maidan activists that prefaced the deadly inferno, despite knowing in advance such clashes were impending on the day.

While stopping short of charging that Ukrainian authorities actively wished for the anti-Maidan activists trapped in the burning building to die, this conclusion is ineluctable based on the ECHR’s findings. So too the apparent immunity from prosecution for implicated officials and ultranationalist perpetrators, and Kiev’s failure to act on “extensive photographic and video evidence” indicating precisely who was responsible for “firing shots during the clashes,” setting the building ablaze, and “assaulting the fire victims” who managed to escape.

The case was brought by 25 people who lost family members in the Neo-Nazi arson attack and clashes that preceded it, and three who survived the fire “with various injuries”. The ECHR has demanded Ukraine pay them just 15,000 euros each in damages. In an even greater affront to justice, the damning ruling stops short of exposing the full reality of the Odessa slaughter, indicting the Western-supported Neo-Nazi elements responsible, and their intimate ties to the February 2014 Maidan Square false flag sniper massacre.

‘Explicit Order’

Once the Maidan protests commenced in Ukraine in November 2013, tensions began steadily brewing between Odessa’s sizable Russian-speaking population and Ukrainian nationalists within and without the city. As the ECHR ruling notes, “while violent incidents had overall remained rare…the situation was volatile and implied a constant risk of escalation.” In March 2014, anti-Maidan activists set up a tent camp in Kulykove Pole Square, and began calling for a referendum on the establishment of an “Odessa Autonomous Republic”.

The next month, supporters of Odesa Chornomorets and Kharkiv Metalist football clubs announced a rally “For a United Ukraine” on May 2, before a scheduled match. Shortly thereafter, the ECHR records “anti-Maidan posts began to appear on social media describing the event as a Nazi march and calling for people to prevent it.” While branded Russian “disinformation” in the ruling, hooligans associated with both clubs had overt Neo-Nazi sympathies and associations, and well-established reputations for violence. They later formed the notorious Azov Battalion.

Fearing their tent encampment would be attacked, anti-Maidan activists resolved to disrupt the “pro-unity march” before it reached them. The ECHR reveals Ukraine’s security services and cybercrime unit had substantive intelligence indicating “violence, clashes and disorder” were certain on the day. Yet, authorities “ignored the available intelligence and the relevant warning signs”, and undertook no actions or “proper measures” to “stamp out any provocation”, such as implementing “enhanced security in the relevant areas.”

So it was on the afternoon of May 2nd 2014, “as soon as the march began,” anti-Maidan activists confronted the demonstrators, and violent clashes erupted. At roughly 17:45, in the precise manner of the Maidan Square sniper false flag massacre three months earlier, multiple anti-Maidan activists were fatally shot “by someone standing on a nearby balcony”, using “a hunting gun.” Subsequently, “pro-unity protesters…gained the upper hand in the clashes,” and charged towards Kulykove Pole square.

Anti-Maidan activists duly “took refuge” in Trade Unions House, a five-storey building overlooking the square, while their ultranationalist adversaries “started setting fire to the tents.” Gunfire and Molotov cocktails were “reportedly” exchanged by both sides, and before long, the building was ablaze. “Numerous calls” were made to the local fire brigade, including by police, “to no avail.” Mysteriously, its chief had “instructed his staff not to send any fire engines to Kulykove Pole without his explicit order,” so none were dispatched.

Several people trapped in the building tried to escape by jumping from its upper windows – some survived, but others died. “Video footage shows pro-unity protesters attacking people who had jumped or had fallen,” the ECHR notes. It was not until 20:30 that firefighters finally entered the building and extinguished the blaze. Police then arrested 63 surviving activists “still inside the building or on the roof.” They were released two days later, after a several hundred-strong group of anti-Maidan protesters “stormed the local police station where they were being held.”

‘Serious Defects’

The litany of security failures and industrial scale negligence by authorities on the day was greatly aggravated by “local prosecutors, law enforcement, and military officers” not being “contactable for a large part or all of time [sic],” as they were coincidentally attending a meeting with Ukraine’s Deputy Prosecutor General. The ECHR “found the attitude and passivity of those officials inexplicable,” apparently unwilling to consider the obvious possibility they purposefully made themselves incommunicado to ensure maximum mayhem and bloodshed, while insulating themselves from legal repercussions. 

Still, the ECHR ruled “relevant” Ukrainian authorities “had not done everything they reasonably could to prevent the violence” or “what could reasonably be expected of them to save people’s lives,” therefore finding Kiev committed “violations of the substantive aspect of Article 2” of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court also concluded authorities “failed to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events in Odessa” – “a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2”.

The ECHR’s appraisal of criminal investigations into perpetrators of the Odessa massacre, and all the officials who failed in their most basic duties on May 2nd 2014, was absolutely scathing, the details pointing to a very clear, deliberate state-level coverup. For example, no effort was made to seal off “affected areas of the city centre” in the event’s aftermath. Instead, “the first thing” authorities did “was to send cleaning and maintenance services to those areas,” meaning invaluable evidence was almost inevitably eradicated.

Accordingly, when on-site inspections were finally carried out two weeks later, the probes “produced no meaningful results.” Trade Unions House likewise “remained freely accessible to the public for 17 days after the events,” giving malicious actors plentiful time to manipulate, remove, or plant incriminating evidence at the site. Meanwhile, “many of the suspects absconded.” Several criminal investigations into perpetrators were opened, only to go nowhere, left to expire under Ukraine’s statute of limitations. Other cases that reached trial “remained pending for years”, before being dropped.

This was despite “extensive photographic and video evidence regarding both the clashes in the city centre and the fire,” from which culprits’ identities could be easily discerned. . The ECHR had no confidence Ukrainian authorities “made genuine efforts to identify all the perpetrators,” and several forensic reports weren’t released for many years. Elsewhere, the Court noted a criminal investigation of an individual suspected of having shot at anti-Maidan activists was inexplicably discontinued on four separate occasions, on identical grounds. 

The ECHR also noted “serious defects” in investigations of officials, “and their role in the events.” Primarily, this took the form of “prohibitive delays” and “significant periods of unexplained inactivity and stagnation” in opening cases. For instance, “although it had never been disputed that the fire service regional head had been responsible for the delayed deployment of fire engines to Kulykove Pole,” no probe into his flagrantly criminal dereliction of duty was launched until almost two years after the massacre.

Similarly, Odessa’s regional police chief not only failed to implement any “contingency plan in the event of mass disorder” according to protocol, but internal documents attesting that security measures had in fact been undertaken were found to have been forged. However, he only became subject to criminal investigation “almost a year later.” Following pre-trial investigation, his case remained pending “for about eight years,” after which he was released from criminal liability, “on the grounds that the charges against him had become time-barred.”

Burn Everything’

Wholly unconsidered by the ECHR was the prospect that, far from a freak twist of fate produced by two effectively warring factions clashing in Odessa, the lethal incineration of anti-Maidan activists in May 2014 was an intentional and premeditated act of mass murder, conceived and directed by Kiev’s US-installed far-right government. This interpretation is amply reinforced by testimonies from a Ukrainian parliamentary commission, instituted in the massacre’s immediate aftermath.

The commission found Ukrainian national and regional officials explicitly planned to use far-right activists drawn from the fascist Maidan Self-Defence to violently suppress Odessa’s would-be separatists, and disperse all those camped by Trade Unions House. Moreover, Maidan Self-Defence chief Andriy Parubiy and 500 of his armed and dangerous members were dispatched to the city from Kiev on the eve of the massacre. From 1998 – 2004, Parubiy served as founder and leader of Neo-Nazi paramilitary faction Patriot of Ukraine.

He also headed Kiev’s National Security and Defence Council at the time of the Odessa massacre. Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigations immediately began scrutinising Parubiy’s role in the May 2014 events after he was replaced as lead parliamentary speaker, following the country’s 2019 general election. This probe has seemingly come to nothing since. Nonetheless, a year prior a Georgian militant told Israeli documentarians that he engaged in “provocations” in the Odessa massacre under Parubiy’s command, who told him to attack anti-Maidan activists and “burn everything.”

He is one of several Georgian fighters who has openly alleged they were personally responsible for the February 2014 Maidan Square false flag sniper massacre, under the command of Parubiy, other ultranationalist Ukrainian figures, and Mikhael Saakashvili, founder of infamous mercenary brigade Georgian Legion. That slaughter brought about the end of Viktor Yanukovych’s government, and sent Ukraine hurtling towards war with Russia. The Odessa massacre was another key chapter in that morbid saga – and the West’s foremost human rights court has now firmly laid responsibility for the horror at Kiev’s feet.

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Legal, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Federal Court Orders Reconsideration of Nuclear Waste Facility Approval, Citing Inadequate Indigenous Consultation

By NNL Digital News , March 20, 2025, https://www.netnewsledger.com/2025/03/20/federal-court-orders-reconsideration-of-nuclear-waste-facility-approval-citing-inadequate-indigenous-consultation/#google_vignette

OTTAWA – A Federal Court decision has ordered the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to revisit its approval of a Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) at the Chalk River Laboratories site, citing errors in its assessment of Indigenous consultation obligations.

The ruling, issued by the Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk on February 19, 2025, in the case of Kebaowek First Nation v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, highlights the importance of adhering to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Canadian law.

The Case at a Glance

The Kebaowek First Nation challenged the CNSC’s decision to grant Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd. (Canadian Nuclear) a license amendment to construct the NSDF, a proposed facility for the permanent storage and disposal of low-level nuclear waste. Kebaowek argued that the CNSC erred by:

  • Failing to apply the UNDRIP and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA) to its decision-making process regarding the duty to consult and accommodate.
  • Concluding that the Crown had fulfilled its duty to consult and accommodate Kebaowek.
  • Determining that the NSDF is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Court’s Findings

Madam Justice Blackhawk’s decision focused on the CNSC’s handling of Indigenous consultation. Key findings included:

  • Jurisdiction to Apply UNDRIP/UNDA: The court found that the CNSC erred in determining it did not have the jurisdiction to consider the application of the UNDRIP and the UNDA to the duty to consult and accommodate.
  • Duty to Consult and Accommodate: The court determined that the CNSC’s assessment of whether the Crown had fulfilled its duty to consult and accommodate Kebaowek was flawed due to the failure to consider the UNDRIP and its principle of “free, prior, and informed consent” (FPIC) as an interpretive lens.
  • Flawed Consultation Process: The court stated that the consultation process was inadequate, and Canadian Nuclear failed to consult in a manner consistent with the UNDRIP and the FPIC standard.

Remedy and Next Steps

The Federal Court has ordered the matter to be remitted back to the CNSC for reconsideration. The CNSC, or a newly struck commission, is directed to:

  • Address the jurisdictional question regarding the application of UNDRIP and the UNDA.
  • Re-assess the Crown’s fulfillment of the duty to consult and accommodate, considering the UNDRIP and the FPIC standard.

Canadian Nuclear and CNSC staff are also directed to resume consultation with Kebaowek, aiming to implement the UNDRIP FPIC standard in a robust manner and work towards achieving an agreement. The court has set a target completion date of September 30, 2026, for this renewed consultation process.

Implications

This decision has significant implications for future development projects in Canada that may affect Indigenous rights and interests. It underscores the importance of:

  • Properly interpreting and applying the UNDRIP and the UNDA.
  • Conducting meaningful and robust consultation with Indigenous communities, consistent with the principles of FPIC.

The ruling emphasizes that consultation processes must be approached from an Indigenous perspective and take into account Indigenous laws, knowledge, and practices.

NetNewsLedger.com will continue to follow this developing story and provide updates.

March 24, 2025 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, Legal | Leave a comment

SCOTUS Ruling Could Shape the Future of Nuclear Waste Storage.

Samuel Lawrence Foundation, 20 Mar 25

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that could have major implications for how nuclear waste is stored across the country—including the 3.6 million pounds of radioactive waste at San Onofre. At the center of the case is whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the authority to license private interim storage facilities, such as the one proposed in Andrews County, Texas, which would hold high-level nuclear waste away from reactor sites. Texas has challenged this decision, arguing that the NRC is overstepping its legal bounds and that waste management should remain under federal oversight.

This case matters to us because San Onofre’s waste remains in thin-walled metal canisters near a rising ocean, with no long-term plan for safe containment. If the Supreme Court rules against private storage, it could limit future options for moving this waste to a safer location. Meanwhile, if the Court upholds the NRC’s authority, it could pave the way for private companies to take a larger role in nuclear waste management—raising serious questions about safety, oversight, and accountability. As we continue to fight for a real solution for San Onofre, this decision will play a critical role in shaping what’s possible. Stay tuned for more updates as this case unfolds.

March 23, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Hold Southern California Edison (SCE) Accountable: From Wildfires to Nuclear Waste.

Samuel Lawrence Foundation, 20 Mar 25

On March 5, 2025, Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit against Southern California Edison (SCE) over the devastating Eaton Fire, which killed 17 people and destroyed over 9,000 structures. The lawsuit alleges that SCE’s failure to maintain its infrastructure led to the disaster—echoing a long history of negligence by the utility. From wildfires to nuclear waste, Edison has repeatedly put profit over public safety, avoiding accountability for the risks it imposes on millions of Californians. The parallels to nuclear waste stored at San Onofre are striking: just as SCE’s equipment failures have fueled deadly fires, their reckless handling of 3.6 million pounds of nuclear waste at San Onofre poses an existential threat to our coastal communities.

This lawsuit highlights the urgent need to hold SCE accountable—not just for wildfire destruction but for the dangerous waste sitting on our shoreline. Our fight continues to demand oversight, responsibility, transportability, and real solutions for San Onofre’s ticking time bomb before disaster strikes again. We are optimistic that LA County will see justice in this fight against Edison.

March 22, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

“We will not back down:” Court tells Greenpeace to pay billion dollar damages bill to oil and gas company

The case has been mired in controversy from the outset with many jurors holding unfavourable views of the protests and it was reported that more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry.

the US decision is a good indicator about what may be in store for Australia.

Royce Kurmelovs, Mar 20, 2025,
https://reneweconomy.com.au/we-will-not-back-down-court-tells-greenpeace-to-pay-billion-dollar-damages-bill-to-oil-and-gas-company/

A jury in the US has hit Greenpeace with $US660 million ($A1.04 billion) in damages for defamation and other claims for the green group’s part in a campaign led by First Nations people against an oil pipeline in 2016 and 2017.

The Standing Rock protests marked a major turning point in the movement against new oil and gas infrastructure, when the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe led a campaign against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline.

Right wing organisations and groups mobilised in response to the protests that became a flashpoint in the broader fight over climate change, with sweeping anti-protest laws rolled out across the United States.

The case against Greenpeace is the latest reaction to the protest with Dallas-based oil and gas company, Energy Transfer Partners, alleging it lost $70 billion as a result of the campaign. It pursued Greenpeace in the courts alleging defamation and incitement of criminal behaviour against the project.

The lawsuit relied upon a US-specific statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), that was initially written to target the mob, but has since been used to prosecute international football federation FIFA for corrupt conduct and ExxonMobil for its role in attacking the science of climate change.

By seeking hundreds of millions in compensation against an organisation that played a minimal role in the protests, legal experts have described the litigation known as “strategic litigation against public participation”, or a “SLAPP Suit”. These are cases brought by large corporation to shut down public criticism or protest about a company’s activities.

The case has been mired in controversy from the outset with many jurors holding unfavourable views of the protests and it was reported that more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Greenpeace made multiple attempts to move the hearings to another venue over concerns it would not get a fair hearing but were denied.

Following the verdict, Greenpeace International Executive Director Mads Christensen linked the decision to a broader corrosion of the right to protest in the US under the Trump administration.

“We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet,” Christensen said.

“The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now along with its allies wants to finish the job by silencing protest.”

“We will not back down. We will not be silenced.”

David Mejia-Canales, a senior human rights lawyer from the Human Rights Law Centre, said the US decision is a good indicator about what may be in store for Australia.

SLAPP suits are not new in Australia, but the US lawfirm representing oil company Santos in the recent Munkara decision that ruled against the Environmental Defenders Office used an approach similar to US-style RICO litigation.

Coalition leader Peter Dutton has already pledged to defund the Environmental Defenders Office after the ruling in Munkara found its lawyers had behaved improperly, but has recently proposed to formally introduce RICO-style laws into Australia if elected.

Mejia-Canales said it was early days on the opposition leader’s proposal that seemed “a bit of a thought bubble” but said that should these laws be introduced, they had “potential to be abused”.

“In a way, the Greenpeace decision in the US is peering a little bit into our own future,” he said. “What we are seeing happening in the US today might be happening here tomorrow.”

“If these RICO type laws get introduced in Australia, they’re not doing it for the greater good or the greater purpose, it’s to stop us critiquing these massive companies whose behaviour leads to a whole lot of criticism and we should be able to do that safely.”

The Human Rights Law Centre is working to draft a bill that would introduce a set of principles for Australian courts to follow when confronted by a SLAPP litigation.

March 22, 2025 Posted by | legal, USA | Leave a comment

Court upholds two legal challenges to the Chalk River Radioactive Megadump.

Gordon Edwards, 14 Mar 25

 The radioactive megadump planned for Chalk River (an “engineered mound” intended to contain about one million tonnes of so-called “Low-level” radioactive waste in a permanent landfill-like toxic waste dump just one kilometre from the Ottawa River) was planned by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and approved by CNSC.

Three legal challenges against this decision were launched in the Federal Appeals Court. The first had to do with the inadequacy of the safety case and the lack of adequate monitoring of the contents of the megadump. The second had to do with the failure to consult the Indigenous Algonquin peoples as required by the “Duty to Consult” and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The third challenge had to do with the failure to consider alternative sites for such a toxic waste facility to provide adequate protection for endangered species.

Although the first challenge was not successful, the good news is that the second and third challenges were upheld by the court and CNSC and CNL will have to re-open the regulatory process to correct the inadequacies that have been noted. This does not mean that the existing megadumo has been forbidden but that more work must be done by both the proponent and the regulator to satisfactorily address these inadequacies.

The success of the third challenge was only announced yesterday.

The Federal Court overturned the Species at Risk permit for the nuclear waste facility planned for Chalk River, just 180 km up the Ottawa River from Ottawa.

The project proponent, CNL, said that the construction would harm, harass, or kill the endangered Blanding’s Turtle and 2 endangered bat species.

The Court found that CNL did not consider all reasonable alternative locations, and CNL admitted that it picked Chalk River even though it was less favourable for protecting species at risk than two other viable sites.

This violated s. 73(3)(a) of the Species at Risk Act, which says that “all” reasonable alternatives that would reduce the impact on species at risk must be considered and the best solution must be adopted.

 There’s a lot to parse, but essentially, Justice Zinn agreed about the first 2 issues (not all reasonable locations were considered, and the best option was not chosen), but disagreed about the others (bat boxes, wildlife corridors, bird nests, the Monarch).

The win on the location issue is huge, of course. If they have to pick a new location, they have to start over from scratch and none of the other issues matter. See para 48 (of the decision) for some good reasoning by Zinn J:

“During both the hearing and public consultation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNL conceded that it would only consider non-AECL properties if no suitable AECL-owned site was identified. This admission confirms that CNL’s default approach was to confine its search to AECL lands unless compelled to broaden it. This methodology is directly at odds with the statutory mandate under paragraph 73(3)(a). The Minister failed to reconcile this self-imposed limitation with the statutory requirement for a comparative assessment of ecological impacts on protected species. I am of the view that, even if a non-AECL site posed greater logistical challenges, such as increased transportation distances, the Act would still require CNL to consider it if it offered reduced harm to at-risk species. Administrative or logistical difficulties do not absolve the project’s proponent of its duty to evaluate such alternatives under paragraph 73(3)(a), even if those factors later justify rejecting them.”

Unfortunately, this does not mean that ECCC will not approve the permit for Chalk River. The decision is being sent back for redetermination, as is normal in admin law cases. From Zinn’s interpretation of the statutory language, it’s hard to see how it could be approved for Chalk River, given CNL’s deficient siting process, but Zinn seemed to be aware of these massive implications and tried to avoid these repercussions. He goes out of his way to say that it could be possible for ECCC to approve the permit for Chalk River if 1) they give appropriate justification for only looking at AECL sites (para 50) and 2) interpreted “best option” differently than ECCC has in the past, to include non-species-at-risk factors, and justified this different interpretation (paras 57-61).

March 16, 2025 Posted by | Canada, Legal, wastes | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »