Global nuclear salesmen still not happy with India’s Nuclear Liability Law
Concern Over India’s Nuclear Liability Law Still Remains: French Firm EDF http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/concern-over-indias-nuclear-liability-law-still-remains-french-firm-edf-1398896
The fresh techno-commercial proposal will also take into account India’s concern over high per unit tariff, French government officials said.
“The French feel that there is a lot of ambiguity in Clause 46 and there is fear in the minds of suppliers. We have raised this issue both with NPCIL and the Department of Atomic Energy,” said a French official.
Last month, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) had signed an agreement for building six European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) as against the earlier proposal of two such reactors.
The delay in the project, which was first signed in 2008, and concern over India’s liability law came in the wake of nuclear firms Areva and EDF merging their reactor businesses into a joint venture controlled by EDF, as part of a broad restructuring last year.
In 2014, the US too had raised similar concerns about Clause 46 in particular.
In April last year, Areva had also signed an agreement with NPCIL to expedite the programme.
“Things are unclear over how much insurance cover does supplier have to take. There is still a lot of ambiguity in this,” the French official said.
The French government officials said the liability issue is still “manageable” but pricing still remains a major hurdle.
While the cost of the electricity generated by Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) Units I and II hovers between Rs. 3 to 3.50 per unit, for JNPP, it is expected to be Rs. 9.14 per unit. India is not ready to go beyond Rs. 6.50 per unit.
EDF plan to help finance Hinkley nuclear project could be illegal
Legal challenge fuels doubt over Westcountry nuclear power station By WMNK Rossiter http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Legal-challenge-fuels-doubt-Westcountry-nuclear/story-29157974-detail/story.html April 22, 2016 By Keith Rossiter A French government plan to help energy company EDF to build a nuclear power station in Somerset could be illegal, barristers have warned.
Greenpeace and green energy company Ecotricity released a legal opinion on a proposed package of financial support.
French economy minister Emmanuel Macron insisted this week that the £18 billion Hinkley Point C power station will go ahead, in spite of doubts over the viability of the project.
EDF won the contract to build Hinkley Point, but has delayed giving the final go-ahead for months. The company has still not signed off a contract with its Chinese partner China General Nuclear Power Corporation.
Mr Macron said he was “actively working” with EDF and the UK Government to draw up the “final points” of a deal for Hinkley and that it was “very important for France” that the project went ahead.
EDF declined to comment on the Greenpeace claims.
The latest speculation, fuelled by Mr Macron, is that the French government would accept dividends from EDF in the form of shares rather than cash.
The legal experts say that the capital injection this would give to EDF would constitute state aid.
“This would destroy a level playing field for European energy companies,” Greenpeace said.
John Sauven, Greenpeace UK executive director, said: “The only way Hinkley can be kept alive is on the life support machine of state aid.
“The UK Government needs to stop penalising the UK renewable energy industry in favour of propping up an ailing state-owned nuclear industry in France.
“The UK should be a haven for renewable energy investment given the massive potential for wind, solar and tidal to cost effectively meet our energy needs.”
The legal opinion from competition and EU law barristers Jon Turner QC, Ben Rayment and Julian Gregory says that the reported refinancing plans for EDF are likely to be illegal under EU law unless and until they are approved by the European Commission.
Greenpeace has written to Amber Rudd, the Energy Secretary, and George Osborne, the Chancellor, warning them not to proceed with the project unless the French state support has been notified to and approved by the Commission.
Ecotricity says State aid for Hinkley would be harmful to EDF’s competitors.
Dale Vince, Ecotricity founder, said: “It’s time for everyone to realise that we’ve reached the end of the road for Hinkley Point – it’s not going to happen.
“Illegal state aid is one thing, but there are technical problems too. EDF is yet to build one of these reactors and their first two attempts are, between them, 16 years late and billions over budget.
“Our government needs to change its stance on green energy, which powered a quarter of the country last year and could do so much more if the sector received even a fraction of the economic and political support given the nuclear industry.”
Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP for the South West, has already asked the European Commission to investigate whether a proposed rescue plan for Hinkley C was in breach of European state aid rules.
She said: “The numbers for the Hinkley deal have never stacked up and it is clear that the commercial case for this white elephant is dead.
“We now have a political battle where the stakes for both the UK and France are just too high to admit failure.”
This week Amber Rudd said that further delays or even a cancellation of Hinkley would not compromise national energy supply.
Dr Scott Cato said: “We know the lights won’t go out if there is a concerted effort to implement Plan B based on renewable energy, energy efficiency and innovative smart grid and energy storage solutions.
“This could be delivered in time to prevent blackouts and create 122,000 quality jobs – many more than nuclear could ever hope to deliver.”
Judge rules against proposed Turkey Point nuclear plans
Court overturns state’s approval of proposed Turkey Point plans, Palm Beach Post April 21, 2016 Florida Power & Light’s quest to add two new reactors and miles of new transmission lines at its Turkey Point plant south of Miami experienced a major setback Wednesday when an appellate court overturned a state decision that would have permitted the reactors.
While the 2014 approval of Units 6 & 7 by Gov. Rick Scott and his Cabinet found the project would not harm the Everglades or wetlands and would not impact endangered birds such as the snail kite and the wood stork, the court disagreed.
To read the 28-page ruling, click here.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the state’s approval of nuclear Units 6 and 7 in an appeal brought by the City of Miami, the Village of Pinecrest and Miami-Dade County.
The court remanded the case and found the board failed to apply Miami’s applicable land development regulations, failed to properly apply environmental regulations and erroneously thought it did not have the power to require FPL to install miles of power lines underground at FPL’s expense.
“FPL presented no competent substantial evidence that the project could satisfy the environmental performance standards” of Miami-Dade County rules, Judge Ivan Fernandez wrote in the ruling…….
By the end of this year, FPL customers will have paid $247 million towards units 6 and 7. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not yet issued the operating license for the project slated to be completed by 2028.
Juno Beach based FPL’s Turkey Point plant is home to two nuclear reactors, known as units 3 and 4. The plant’s two-by-five mile unlined earthen cooling canal system has caused an underwater saltwater plume that has spread roughly 5 miles west of the plant, an administrative law judge found in February.
The cooling canals have been linked to pollutants in Biscayne Bay and into ground water, according to data released by Miami-Dade County. http://protectingyourpocket.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2016/04/20/court-overturns-states-approval-of-two-proposed-turkey-point-reactors/
US citizen indicted for nuclear power conspiracy
Several indicted for nuclear power conspiracy against U.S.U.S. nuclear engineer, China General Nuclear Power Company, Energy Technology International named Claiborne Progress April 21st, 2016 WASHINGTON – A two-count indictment was unsealed April 14 in the Eastern District of Tennessee charging Szuhsiung Ho, aka Allen Ho, a citizen of the United States; China General Nuclear Power Company (CGNPC), formerly known as the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company and Energy Technology International (ETI) for conspiracy to unlawfully engage and participate in the production and development of special nuclear material outside the United States, without the required authorization from the U.S. Department of Energy. This authorization is required by U.S. law and is robustly observed through frequent legal U.S.-China civil nuclear cooperation. Ho was also charged with conspiracy to act in the United States as an agent of a foreign government.
The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy Stallard Harr of the Eastern District of Tennessee and Executive Assistant Director Michael Steinbach of the FBI’s National Security Branch.
“Allen Ho, at the direction of a Chinese state-owned nuclear power company allegedly approached and enlisted U.S. based nuclear experts to provide integral assistance in developing and producing special nuclear material in China,” said Carlin. “Ho did so without registering with the Department of Justice as an agent of a foreign nation or authorization from the U.S. Department of Energy. Prosecuting those who seek to evade U.S. law by attaining sensitive nuclear technology for foreign nations is a top priority for the National Security Division.”
“The prosecution of individuals who potentially endanger our U.S. citizens by violating laws enacted to ensure our national security, has been and will remain a priority for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in eastern Tennessee,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Harr.
“The arrest and indictment in this case send an important message to the U.S. nuclear community that foreign entities want the information you possess,” said Steinbach. “The federal government has regulations in place to oversee civil nuclear cooperation, and if those authorities are circumvented, this can result in significant damage to our national security. The U.S. will use all of its law enforcement tools to stop those who try to steal U.S. nuclear technology and expertise.”…….. http://claiborneprogress.net/news/6303/several-indicted-for-nuclear-power-conspiracy-against-u-s
France’s nuclear corporation EDF warned on legal action over the Hinkley nuclear project debacle
Pressure rises on EDF board over Hinkley Point nuclear plant, FT.com, 19 Apr 16, Michael Stothard in Paris A group of managers at French utility EDF have sent a letter to its board of directors warning they could all face legal action if the company pushes ahead with its contentious Hinkley Point C nuclear project in the UK.
The letter, dated April 19 and seen by the Financial Times, said that if a board decision in favour of Hinkley Point led to the “destruction of the value” at EDF its directors could be held personally responsible……….
French president François Hollande is also meeting ministers at the Élysée Palace on Wednesday to discuss financing options for Hinkley Point. The French state has an 85 per cent stake in EDF.
The letter by the group of EDF managers highlights the internal battle that has raged within the company over Hinkley Point, with chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigning last month because of concerns that the UK project could threaten the company’s future…….
Two other nuclear projects in France and Finland using the same reactor technology proposed for Hinkley Point are both severely delayed and billions over budget…….. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d6d16bd0-0628-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce.html#axzz46IzsG72i
A future of litigation doesn’t augur well for Japan’s nuclear industry
Japan’s nuclear restart stymied by courts Reactors switched on and off in campaign of litigation launched by activists Ft.com APRIL 6, 2016 by: Robin Harding in Tokyo
A welter of conflicting legal decisions has left Japan’s nuclear reactors in a state of limbo as national energy strategy clashes with the courts.
The reactors are being turned on and off like light switches as activists file lawsuits, highlighting the tension between safety fears and energy supply, and raising questions about the role of courts in nuclear regulation………The Takahama shutdown was a particular blow to the industry because a court in the district that hosts the reactor had lifted its injunction against the plant. That showed how plaintiffs can try different judges, given the wide areas potentially affected by an accident.
The stop-start court decisions are a huge frustration to government policymakers, who last year set a goal of restoring nuclear power to 20-22 per cent of Japan’s energy mix……..
“We tried leaving everything to the experts and what we got is Fukushima,” he says, arguing that one way or another, Japan’s nuclear experts are tied to the industry.
“The courts don’t consider energy strategy, they just consider whether a reactor should start or stop,” Mr Kawai says. “Thinking too much about energy strategy and government policy is what leads courts to error.”
Kenichi Ido, a former judge who issued an injunction against a nuclear power station in 2006 — well before the Fukushima disaster — said it was not surprising Japan’s courts kept coming to different opinions given the widely different views in society………That leaves Japan’s reactors facing a future of constant litigation — and Mr Kawai is revelling in it. “We’ll aim to get injunctions against any reactor that tries to restart,” he says.
With the Sendai plant operating, he recognises his alliance of lawyers may not stop them all. But, he promises: “There’s no chance of all Japan’s reactors starting up again.” https://next.ft.com/content/1c92b5ac-fbbb-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b
Fishermen suing Japanese govt over radiation from 1950s atomic tests
Japanese fishermen to sue over fallout from Bikini Atoll nuclear tests in 1950s Julian Ryall 8 APRIL 2016 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/japanese-fishermen-to-sue-over-fallout-from-bikini-atoll-nuclear/
Agroup of fishermen is to sue the Japanese government for failing to release records detailing their exposure to radiation from US nuclear tests in the Pacific in the 1950s.
Some 20 people, including relatives of fishermen who have since died, are to file their case with the Kochi District Court in May, each demanding Y2 million (£13,088) in compensation.
The men have been particularly angered by the actions of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, which in September 2014 admitted it had data on the radioactive fallout that around 500 fishing vessels and their crews were exposed to in the Castle Bravo nuclear tests.
The ministry had previously claimed the documents no longer existed, the Asahi newspaper reported.
The first of the Castle Bravo tests, on March 1, 1954, was three times more powerful than scientists had initially predicted, producing a fireball around 4.5 miles across within a second.
The mushroom cloud reached a height of nearly 9 miles in around one minute and eventually climbed to an altitude of 25 miles. The blast was estimated to be 1,000 times more powerful than the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As well as producing a larger blast, strong winds took the fallout far greater distances than the scientists had expected.
The Daigo Fukuryu Maru was approximately 800 miles east of Bikini Atoll, one of the Marshall Islands in the central Pacific, and more than 80 miles outside the US government’s 92,000 square mile exclusion zone around the island, when the first bomb was detonated.
Fallout began to coat the tuna fishing boat – and its 23 crew – about two hours later. Unaware of the danger, they scooped the radioactive ash off the deck with their bare hands, while one of the fishermen, Matashichi Oishi, said he licked the dust, reporting that it was gritty but had no taste.
By the time the ship docked in Japan two weeks later, the men were suffering from nausea, headaches, burns, pain in their eyes and bleeding from their gums and were diagnosed with acute radiation poisoning.
In September, 40-year-old Aikichi Kuboyama died as a result of his exposure. In 1955, the US paid Japan $2 million in “consolation money” and concluded the issue at the political level. The Japanese government paid each of the crew of the Lucky Dragon Y2 million (£13,088 at present day exchange rates), but provided nothing to fishermen aboard other ships.
The health ministry in Tokyo maintains that crew members of 10 ships were exposed to radiation, but it insists that their doses “did not reach levels that could damage their health”.
Tests conducted on enamel on the teeth of the fishermen by a professor at Okayama University of Science revealed radiation measuring up to 414 millisieverts, equivalent to people standing about 1 mile from the hypocenter of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Under Japanese law, anyone who was within 2.2 miles of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bomb detonation points is eligible for medical allowances for a range of illnesses, including cancer.
Rural Indians’ lawsuit against coal power plant is dismissed by USA judge
U.S. judge nixes lawsuit against World Bank over power plant in India BY SEBASTIEN MALO http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-lawsuit-worldbank-idUSKCN0WW2H2 NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) 30 Mar 16 – A U.S. federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Indian fishermen and farmers who sued the World Bank over a loan for a power plant they claimed ravaged the environment.
The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) is shielded by immunity and cannot be sued in the United States, the U.S. District Court judge ruled.
The IFC loaned $450 million to help build the coal-fueled Mundra power plant in India’s coastal region of Gujarat, which became fully operational in 2013.
The Indian company that carried out the project, Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, a subsidiary of Tata Power, said it would create jobs, benefit 16 million domestic consumers and provide competitively priced electricity to industry and agriculture.
But fishermen, farmers and others living near the plant said it took a huge toll on the environment.
Saltwater leaking from the plant made groundwater undrinkable and unfit for irrigation, hot water from the cooling system harmed the fish catch and air quality suffered, they said in the U.S. lawsuit filed last year in the District of Columbia.
Their way of life could be “fundamentally threatened or destroyed,” the complaint said, accusing the IFC of irresponsible and negligent conduct in financing and supervising its loan.
But U.S. District Court Judge John Bates in a ruling last week said under the International Organizations Immunities Act, the IFC is immune to prosecution in the United States.
The Indians plan to appeal, the U.S. nonprofit EarthRights International, which filed the lawsuit, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
“This is a fight for our lives and livelihood,” Gajendrasinh Jadeja, head of Navinal Panchayat, a village that is a party in the case, said in an email.
“We believe we will prevail,” Jadeja said.
An IFC spokeswoman said the organization would not comment on active legal matters.
A plan being implemented by Coastal Gujarat Power, however, includes what she called “mitigation measures,” she said, but she did not elaborate.
The World Bank and IFC have come under criticism by groups that contend their focus on big projects can disrupt the environment and displace people.
The IFC, with 184 member countries, is the “largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing countries,” according to its website.
(Reporting by Sebastien Malo, Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women’s rights, trafficking, land rights and climate change. Visit news.trust.org)
Japan claims that Memorandum of Understanding with India is “legally binding”
Japan says India’s nuclear MoU “legally binding” THE HINDU, KALLOL BHATTACHERJEE 20 Mar 16 Nuclear experts describe the MoU as a backdoor attempt to draw India into the NPT
Days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington DC for the Nuclear Security Summit, a senior Japanese diplomat told The Hindu that India had committed to adhere to the “control of nuclear material, traceability [of nuclear fuel] and consequence in case of a nuclear accident” under the memorandum of understanding (MoU) on civil nuclear cooperation with Japan signed during Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to India in 2015.
Intrusive, feel experts
Though the bilateral agreement leaves out India’s military nuclear programme, experts warn that the agreed principles impinge on India’s independent nuclear programme as they imply intrusive inspection of civilian nuclear reactors as warranted under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The Japanese diplomat pointed out that so far, the world had to rely on India’s verbal commitments on nuclear non-proliferation, but the India-Japan MoU marked the first occasion when India came under legal obligation to uphold non-proliferation concerns.
“There were no tools to bind India, only India’s voluntary self-claimed policy existed, but now there is legally binding measures by the agreement between India and Japan,” said the diplomat, explaining that the commitments were proof of India’s peaceful and transparent intentions in using nuclear reactors solely for energy generation. He said India will be financially accountable if it is found to be violating the principles.
An Indian official who has been associated with the negotiations said the principles being cited by the Japanese were nothing extraordinary and were part of the “standard template for civil nuclear deal” that India had signed with several countries. However, he refused to address the Japanese assertion that India would have to financially compensate Japan if it violated the principles……..http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/japan-says-indias-nuclear-mou-legally-binding/article8377976.ece
After court ruling, things are grim for Japan’s nuclear industry
Japan’s nuclear energy policy remains in disarray after court ruling http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20160317-THE-LAST-MILE/Politics-Economy/Japan-s-nuclear-energy-policy-remains-in-disarray-after-court-ruling
NAOKI ASANUMA, Nikkei staff writer, Tokyo 17 Mar 16, Five years after the devastating earthquake and tsunami that caused reactors to melt down at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant, Japan’s nuclear energy policy remains in disarray. On March 9, the Otsu District Court in Shiga Prefecture ordered Kansai Electric Power to halt the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors at its Takahama nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture, after taking issue with the power company’s safety protocols regarding earthquakes and tsunamis. The order is the first of its kind suspending the operation of a reactor in service in Japan and has raised questions about who among the many stakeholders — utilities, the central government, local authorities, regulators, residents and courts — has the power to start or stop them.
Kansai Electric shut down the No. 3 reactor the day after the court order, leaving Japan with only two reactors in operation — the No. 1 and No. 2 units at Kyushu Electric Power’s Sendai plant, in Kagoshima Prefecture. The No. 4 reactor at Takahama was already shut down due to problems that occurred soon after it was reactivated in February.
Prior to the ruling, the restart of nuclear reactors had followed a formula of sorts: A power company receives the nod from the Nuclear Regulation Authority after examinations based on the regulator’s new safety standards. The central government then helps local governments of areas within a 30km radius of the plant prepare evacuation plans. After the local governments give their consent, the reactor is then fired up. The formula was upset, however, by 29 Shiga residents living outside the 30km radius, who asked the Otsu court for an injunction.
In handing down its ruling, the court said efforts by Kansai Electric and the Nuclear Regulation Authority to understand the causes of the Fukushima meltdown were insufficient.
“Japan has learned nothing from the Fukushima accident,” said Yotaro Hatamura, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, who served as chairman of a government-appointed committee to investigate the disaster. “The reactivation [of reactors] represents nothing but irresponsibility.”
While the Strategic Energy Plan worked out by the government in 2014 calls for reducing reliance on nuclear power “as much as possible,” it positions nuclear energy as an “important baseload power source.” But with lawsuits demanding the suspension of nuclear plants and petitions seeking provisional halts proliferating, a new question in the wake of the Otsu ruling is whether nuclear plants can serve that purpose, given that they may suddenly cease to operate.
The “best mix” of energy sources for 2030, projected by the government last year, puts the ratio of nuclear power at 20% to 22%. Former Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Yoichi Miyazawa said Japan “needs to operate some 35 reactors,” suggesting the difficulty of achieving the target. In a survey by The Nikkei, 60% of people said the reactivation of nuclear power plants should not be promoted.
At the Fukushima plant itself, officials cite progress with the cleanup work.
Court hearing – clash between German Govt and nuclear utilities
German utilities, government clash at nuclear court hearing Reuters 14 Mar 16
*Gov’t confident it will win the case -Minister
* Utilities could claim as much as 19 bln euros
* Final decision to take several months (Recasts, adds comments from RWE, Minister, graphic)
By Christoph Steitz and Tom Käckenhoff KARLSRUHE, Germany, German power firms and government members clashed at a court hearing over the country’s controversial decision to shut down all nuclear plants by 2022, a lawsuit that could allow utilities to claim 19 billion euros ($21 billion) in damages.
In a case that pits a struggling energy industry against the government, Germany’s Constitutional Court will examine the arguments of E.ON, RWE and Vattenfall , who want to be compensated for the closure………http://uk.reuters.com/article/germany-utilities-nuclear-idUKL5N16N2G7
Hanford Nuclear Reservation ordered by federal judge to comply with new deadlines for nuclear waste clean-up
Federal judge sets new deadlines for nuclear waste cleanup at Hanford http://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/4113014-151/federal-judge-sets-new-deadlines-for-nuclear-waste# The Associated Press /Mar 13, 2016 SPOKANE, Wash. — A federal judge has set new deadlines for cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation after Washington state went to court to prod the U.S. Department of Energy over the flagging efforts.
U.S. District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson issued the new deadlines in a 102-page order late Friday. Among them: A plant designed to treat low-activity radioactive waste must begin operating by 2022, and a plant to convert the most dangerous waste into glass for burial must be fully operating by 2036.
Washington and Oregon sued the U.S. Energy Department nearly a decade ago over missed cleanup deadlines, and after a settlement, Washington went back to court in 2014, leading to the judge’s order Friday.
Peterson criticized the Energy Department for what she described as a “total lack of transparency” as to the delays. She said that if the department had kept the states better apprised of the status of the cleanup efforts, the states could have sought further funding from Congress to help avert delays.
“The passage of time and the urgency of waste clean-up are inextricablylinked: the longer that DOE takes to satisfy its obligations under the Consent Decree the greater the likelihood of irreversible damage to the environment,” the judge wrote. “No party can ‘win’ this litigation. The public and environment only can ‘lose’ as more time passes without an operational solution to the radioactive waste problems at the Hanford Site.”
The government used the Hanford site during World War II and the Cold War to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Hanford’s 586 square miles house over 50 million gallons of nuclear waste in 177 underground tanks, many of which are leaking.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson welcomed the court’s ruling, which they said Saturday will hold federal authorities accountable for the cleanup and which set firmer deadlines than the Energy Department wanted.
“Cleaning up the legacy waste at Hanford is the federal government’s legal and moral responsibility to the Tri-Cities community and the Pacific Northwest,” Inslee said. “I have been repeatedly frustrated by the delays and lack of progress toward meeting key milestones in waste cleanup and treatment. We cannot consider any further delays, and I am pleased that the court clearly agrees.”
Marshall Islands legal case puts nuclear weapons back on the world agenda
Tiny Marshall Islands Taking On 3 World Nuclear Powers In Court http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/07/469521887/tiny-marshall-islands-taking-on-3-world-nuclear-powers-in-court
March 8, 2016 MERRIT KENNEDY The Marshall Islands is on an unlikely mission — trying to press India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom to curb their nuclear programs.
The Pacific archipelago, which was the site of dozens of U.S. nuclear tests in the ’40s and ’50s, is suing the three countries in the U.N.’s International Court of Justice. The Marshall Islands says the three countries haven’t carried out in good faith their obligations to pursue negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.
It says the U.K. is obligated to do so because it is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India and Pakistan haven’t signed the NPT, but the Marshall Islands argues that this principle is sufficiently well-enshrined in international law to be considered customary law.”Nobody expects the Marshall Islands to force the three powers to disarm, but the archipelago’s dogged campaign highlights the growing scope for political minnows to get a hearing through global tribunals,” Reuters reports.
So why isn’t the Marshall Islands suing the U.S., the country that was actually testing its nukes on their territory? The short answer: It tried. As the Two-Way reported when the case was filed in 2014, the island chain attempted to file suit against all nine countries believed to possess a nuclear arsenal:
“Besides the U.S., the Marshall Islands is also suing Russia, China, France and the U.K., which have all signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, as well as four other countries that have never signed — India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, which has never acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons. …
“In court documents, the Marshall Islands argues that the 1968 NPT, which did not come into force until 1970, amounts to a compact between nuclear haves and have-nots. Non-weapons states essentially agreed not to try to acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for weapons states moving toward disarmament, the Marshalls says.”
However, only the cases against India, Pakistan and the U.K. are still proceeding. That’s because these are the only three countries that have “made a commitment to respond to suits brought at the ICJ,” Reuters reports. Preliminary hearings against India started on Monday in The Hague, with sessions on Pakistan and the U.K. scheduled in the coming weeks.
The Marshall Islands is pursuing global disarmament as a result of its “particular awareness of the dire consequences of nuclear weapons,” according to court documents.In 2014, the Two-Way reported on the lasting impact of those tests:
“Although islanders were relocated from Bikini and Eniwetok atolls — ground zero for the majority of the tests — three other Marshall atolls underwent emergency evacuations in 1954 after they were unexpectedly exposed to radioactive fallout. The Marshallese say they’ve suffered serious health issues ever since.
“The Marshall Islands were governed by the U.S. until 1979 and won full independence in 1986.”
The International Court of Justice hasn’t issued an opinion on nuclear weapons since 1996. As Dapo Akande, professor of international law at Oxford University, tells Reuters: “The success will be in putting the issue back on the agenda. … This is as much as the Marshall Islands can hope for.”
The Takahama injunction – a damaging blow to Japan’s nuclear industry hopes
The Otsu ruling also calls on the national government to take the lead in formulating evacuation plans for residents within 30 km of a nuclear plant, and not just leave such planning to local governments.
That raises the possibility of further lawsuits seeking injunctions against other reactors on the grounds that the central government has not taken the lead in formulating evacuation plans. Nationwide, there are 135 cities, towns, and villages in 21 prefectures within 30 km of nuclear power plants.
Takahama injunction delivers body blow to Japan’s nuclear power industry http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/10/national/takahama-injunction-delivers-body-blow-to-japans-nuclear-power-industry/#.VuHaZ3197Gh
BY ERIC JOHNSTON OSAKA – Wednesday’s decision by an Otsu District Court judge to slap a provisional injunction on the restart of the No. 3 and 4 reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Takahama nuclear plant has sent a shock through the nuclear power industry.
Moreover, pro-nuclear politicians fear that the nation’s push to restart as many reactors as possible as quickly as possible has come to a halt.
On the eve of the fifth anniversary of the 2011 disaster, which included the meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 plant and led to the nation suspending its use of nuclear power for an extended period, only two reactors, Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Sendai No. 1 and 2 reactors, were generating electricity.
The Takahama No. 3 reactor was restarted in January. Kepco officials said it would be shut down in accordance with the court order by Thursday evening. Continue reading
Court injunction stops Takahama nuclear reactors
Court issues surprise injunction to halt http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/09/national/court-issues-surprise-injunction-halt-takahama-nuclear-reactors/ BY ERIC JOHNSTON
STAFF WRITER MAR 9, 2016 OTSU, SHIGA PREF. – In a surprise ruling that is likely to delay efforts to restart nuclear power generation nationwide, the Otsu District Court on Wednesday issued a provisional injunction ordering Kansai Electric Power Co. to shut down its No. 3 and No. 4 reactors at its Takahama facility in Fukui Prefecture.
While Kepco is expected to appeal the ruling, company officials said at a news conference that was hastily called after the decision that they would begin operations to shut down the No. 3 reactor on Thursday morning, and expected to complete the process by the evening.
The No. 3 reactor was restarted in January, and the No. 4, which had been scheduled to restart last month, was delayed due to technical problems.
“There are doubts remaining about both the tsunami response and the evacuation plan,” the ruling said.
The Otsu ruling comes just two days before the fifth anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake and the resulting tsunami and triple meltdown at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 plant.
The jubilant plaintiffs expressed surprise and relief following the ruling, which emphasized technical problems regarding the two reactors, including issues concerning an outside power supply source in the event of an emergency. The ruling also raised concerns over the emergency protocol.
“This is a huge victory for the safety of children, people with disabilities, and the society and economy of not only the Fukui-Kansai region of Japan but the entire country,” said Aileen Mioko Smith of Kyoto-based Green Action, an anti-nuclear group. Smith was not a plaintiff in the case.
The lawsuit that sought the injunction was filed by Shiga residents who are fearful that an accident at the Takahama plant, which lies less than 30 kilometers from the northern part of Shiga Prefecture, would impact Lake Biwa, the nation’s largest freshwater body and the source of water for about 14 million people in the Kansai region, including Kyoto and Osaka.
The judgment — the first of its kind affecting reactors that were fired up under strengthened safety regulations following the March 2011 disaster — is a blow to the government’s renewed push for atomic power. The ruling could also cast doubt on the stringency of the new safety regulations.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, however, told reporters following the ruling the government would not change its basic stance of promoting restarts.
In a separate case concerning the two reactors, the Fukui District Court issued an injunction last April banning Kansai Electric from restarting the units, citing safety concerns.
But the same court later lifted the injunction in December, allowing the utility to resume operations at both reactors. Plaintiffs appealed the court decision to the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court, where the case is pending.
Under the revamped safety regulations, which took effect in 2013, utilities are for the first time obliged to put in place specific countermeasures in the event of severe accidents such as reactor core meltdowns and huge tsunami — which was the initial cause of the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant.
1 This Month
Watch the 2026 Doomsday Clock unveiling live here on January 27 at 10 a.m. EST
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (277)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 