nuclear-news

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

After 26 year battle for justice, Rocky Flats residents get some kind of deal from nuclear weapons plant operators

Deal reached between homeowners, weapons plant operators, Albuquerque Journal By Dan Elliott / Associated Press May 19th, 2016 DENVER — Thousands of homeowners have reached a $375 million settlement over their claims that plutonium releases from a nuclear weapons plant in Colorado damaged their health and devalued their property, officials said Thursday.

A federal judge must approve the agreement before it officially ends the 26-year legal battle between the residents and two corporations that ran the Rocky Flats plant for the federal government.

Perched on a wind-swept mesa west of Denver, Rocky Flats manufactured plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads until it closed in 1989 because of safety and environmental concerns. It’s the most prominent of Colorado’s Cold War relics, which also included a nerve gas manufacturing site east of Denver.

Few details of the settlement were available. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Merrill Davidoff, said the agreement has been submitted to the judge overseeing the case but no documents have been made public…….

The lawsuit took years to go to trial. In 2006, a jury found the companies had damaged nearby land and hurt residents’ health. In 2008, a judge ordered the companies to pay a combined $925 million.

An appeals court overturned the verdict and the award on Sept. 3, 2010, saying the homeowners hadn’t proved that plutonium releases from the plant had hurt their health or their property. The court said a decline in property value can’t be considered damage.

The case had been appealed to the Supreme Court, but the appeal has been dropped.

After a $7 billion cleanup that took 10 years, most of the 8-square-mile property became a wildlife refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The most heavily contaminated area remains off-limits to the public. http://www.abqjournal.com/777588/deal-reached-between-homeowners-weapons-plant-operators-3.html

May 21, 2016 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Boston Edison Company, now known as NSTAR Electric Company sues US Dept of Energy

DOE Sued for $40M Over Nuclear Waste Storage, Courthouse News Service By LORRAINE BAILEY CN), 19 May 16  — Blaming the government for not settling on a nuclear-waste storage scheme, a nuclear energy company has filed a federal complaint to recover $40 million.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the U.S. Department of Energy to accept and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by Jan. 31, 1998, in return for fees paid by owners of such waste.
It also effectively made it mandatory for nuclear utilities to enter into contracts for such disposal.
When the Department of Energy failed to meet the 1998 deadline, however, utilities began to incur substantial costs for storage and management of the waste accumulating at reactor sites.
By 2006, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims had found that the Department of Energy partially breached its contractual obligations to Yankee Atomic Electric Co., Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co., and Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., all of which are now decommissioned, to the tune of $235 million

Boston Edison Company, now known as NSTAR Electric Company, operated the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts, until 1999 when it sold the plant to Entergy Nuclear General Company.
It sued the U.S. in the Court of Federal Claims Wednesday over its continued obligation to pay for highly reactive waste storage.
Boston Edison says it paid Entergy $40.3 million to cover the cost to store spent nuclear fuel through 2012, the expected decommissioning date for the plant.
That fuel would have been disposed of by the government had it kept its pledge.
But now, Entergy has stated that operations at Pilgrim will continue through 2019, and there is still no government plan for a permanent repository for high level nuclear waste.
Most nuclear power plants continue to keep their reactor waste on-site in steel and concrete casks……. The Department of Energy has expressed the urgency need to find a permanent repository, but the Congress has taken no action since abandoning the Yucca Mountain project.

Boston Energy seeks damages for breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith. http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/05/19/doe-sued-for-40m-over-nuclear-waste-storage.htm

May 21, 2016 Posted by | Legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Emotional plea from Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in support of U.S. sailors, victims of radiation

Tearful Koizumi backs U.S. vets suing over 2011 nuclear disaster THE ASAHI SHIMBUN CARLSBAD, California, 19 May 16, –Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi broke down in tears as he made an emotional plea of support for U.S. Navy sailors beset by health problems they claim resulted from radioactive fallout after the 2011 nuclear disaster.

More than 400 veterans who were part of a mission called Operation Tomodachi to provide humanitarian relief after the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami filed a mass lawsuit in California against Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant. They are seeking compensation and an explanation for their health problems.

Koizumi, 74, responded to a request from a group supporting the plaintiffs and flew to the United States to meet with 10 veterans.

At a news conference here on May 17, Koizumi said: “U.S. military personnel who did their utmost in providing relief are now suffering from serious illnesses. We cannot ignore the situation.”……

Some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were crew members of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, which anchored off the Tohoku coast to provide relief along the battered coastline.

Theodore Holcomb, an aviation mechanic on the flattop, was tasked with washing down U.S. helicopters that had operated in areas with high radiation. He was later diagnosed with synovial sarcoma, a rare form of cancer. He died in 2014 at age 35.

The Department of Veterans Affairs later cut off a study into the causal relationship between his exposure to radiation and his illness.

His best friend in the Navy, Manuel Leslie, 41, now is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit on behalf of Holcomb.

Leslie said he just wants the truth to come out for his friend.

Another crew member, Ron Wright, 26, worked on the deck. After finishing his shift one day, he was forced to remove his clothes after a high radiation reading. Subsequently, he developed a swelling of the testicles and underwent surgery four times after he returned to the United States. However, the pain was so intense that he had to rely on painkillers and sleeping pills.

A military doctor told him there was no relationship between his illness and exposure to radiation.

Wright said he was never given protective clothing or iodine during the mission. He also said he had no knowledge of radiation at the time.

According to the ship’s logs and the testimony of former crew members, sailors aboard the Ronald Reagan may well have been exposed to radiation as the carrier passed under a radiation plume that was generated by the Fukushima accident. In addition, the carrier used desalinated seawater for drinking and showers by crew members……… This article was written by Masato Tainaka and Ari Hirayama. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201605190065.html

May 20, 2016 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Lawsuit on Bikini Atoll nuclear tests

Bikini-Atoll-bombRevisiting Bikini Atoll nuclear tests  Japan Times, 15 May 16 A recent lawsuit filed by former crew members and relatives of deceased crew members of fishing boats operating near the area where the United States conducted a series of nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific in 1954 — seeking compensation from the Japanese government over its questionable behavior at the time and in subsequent years — carries historical significance. More than six decades after the hydrogen bomb tests at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, beginning with a test explosion code-named Castle Bravo on March 1, 1954, the lawsuit will help shed fresh light not only on the scope of radiation exposure for Japanese fishermen but also on whether the Japanese and U.S. governments acted properly to deal with the consequences of the fallout from the tests.

Even before the court proceedings begin, the omission on the part of the Japanese government seems clear — its failure to properly examine and keep track of the potential damage to the fishermen’s health and nondisclosure for decades of the records of their radiation exposure.

In connection with the 15-megaton Castle Bravo test, which was over 1,000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, the tragedy of the tuna trawler Fukuryu Maru No. 5, also known as the Lucky Dragon, is widely known. The fallout from the test fell onto the vessel for a few hours, causing its 23 crew members to suffer nausea. By the time they returned to their home port of Yaizu, Shizuoka Prefecture, two weeks later, they had developed serious symptoms of radiation sickness, and the radio operator, Aikichi Kuboyama, died six months later. The Fukuryu Maru incident sowed the seed for civic anti-nuclear movements in Japan.

The islanders suffered a great deal. The H-bomb tests contaminated many areas of the Marshall Islands so badly that they became unlivable. The tests destroyed the culture of the islands and irradiated thousands of people. In the years after the tests, the U.S. told evacuated islanders that it was safe to return. But many returning residents were exposed to contaminated water, air and food due to the false assurance.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the first legal action seeking state compensation over the 1954 H-bomb tests, are former crew members of fishing boats other than the Fukuryu Maru that were operating in the area around the time of the tests and family members of fishermen who have since died. Most of the fishing boats were from Kochi Prefecture……

With the lawsuit, the plaintiffs will try to bring to light the government’s omission, including its failure to conduct follow-up health surveys on the crew members and to pay compensation to those who fell ill due to causes linked to the radiation exposure. Several of the former fishermen died of cancer — although it will be difficult to establish the causal relationship because so much time has passed. At least the court proceedings should shed light on how the government acted when it negotiated the settlement with the U.S. over the Fukuryu Maru incident — as well as on why the records of the radiation exposure suffered by other Japanese fishermen were kept undisclosed for so long and why no follow-up checks on the fishermen’s health were made. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/05/15/editorials/revisiting-bikini-atoll-nuclear-tests/#.VzjsOTV97Gg

May 16, 2016 Posted by | Japan, Legal, OCEANIA | Leave a comment

European law mean sit is illegal for France’s govt to fund EDF’s Hinkley nuclear project

justiceflag-EUFrance funding Hinkley C ‘would be illegal’ under EU competition rules say Greenpeace and Ecotricity http://www.cheddarvalleygazette.co.uk/France-funding-Hinkley-C-illegal-EU-competition/story-29158662-detail/story.html By Cheddar Valley Gazette   April 24, 2016 The European Commission is ‘almost certain’ to block the French Government spending billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to make sure the Hinkley C nuclear power station project is completed.

That was the view of a coalition of West environmentalists today, who said if the French president Francois Hollande was to plunge £3 billion into Hinkley C, it would breach European state aid rules.

The European Union forbids states using taxpayers’ money to invest in projects which favour one company over another – and a new report revealed this morning by a leading London law firm says that would clearly be illegal under EU competition rules.

EDF, the firm planning to build a third nuclear power station in west Somerset, is majority-owned by the French Government anyway, but Greenpeace, Stroud-based renewable energy firm Ecotricity and the Green Party’s South West MEP, Molly Scott Cato, have all said they would challenge that decision, and ask the European Commission to block any state investment by France.

EDF is putting in half the £18 billion Hinkley C project cost, two Chinese nuclear energy firms are investing a third, but attempts by EDF to find that shortfall – one-sixth, or around £3 billion – have failed amid fears the project would be uneconomic.

The firm has gone to French Government ministers to ask for state backing, and that is ‘expected’ to be ratified and the project get the go-ahead in the next couple of weeks.

But the environmentalists who have long campaigned against Hinkley C said this morning that would breach EU competition rules, arguing the French Government should not be allowed to use taxpayers’ money to compete against energy providers in this country who receive no such help.

Dale Vince, Ecotricity founder, said his firm would consider legal action to stop Hinkley C. “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,” he said.

“Illegal state aid is one thing, and we’ll work with Greenpeace to challenge that if it happens, but it’s not just financial issues, there are technical problems with Hinkley Point too – EDF are 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,” he added.

Greenpeace have yesterday wrote to energy minister Amber Rudd and chancellor George Osborne warning the ministers not to proceed with the project unless and until the French state support has been notified to and approved by the EU Commission.

“The only way Hinkley can be kept alive is on the life support machine of state aid,” said Greenpeace boss John Sauven. “EDF, if it is to stay in business, needs a new vision which is not looking backwards. And 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.

“Globally, the nuclear market is shrinking year by year overtaken by the huge surge in renewable energy. 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,” he added.

The legal opinion is given by Jon Turner QC, Ben Rayment and Julian Gregory, three eminent competition and EU law barristers from Monckton Chambers.

It sets out how the French government’s reported refinancing plans for EDF are likely to be illegal under EU law unless and until they are approved by the European Commission.

The European Commission’s investigation of state aid takes around a year, and it is doubtful that approval would be given.

“The numbers for the Hinkley deal have never stacked up and it is clear that the commercial case for this white elephant is dead,” said Green MEP for the south west, Molly Scott Cato.

“We have now a political battle where the stakes for both the UK and France are just too high to admit failure. But we cannot let this override EU rules on state aid or fair competition.”

“With EDF close to bankruptcy and serious questions over the legality of state aid for the project the French government and the French President are showing themselves to be totally irresponsible. The Board of EDF must put the interests of its shareholders and employees first and avoid committing economic suicide by rejecting a final investment decision,” she added.

EDF has consistently denied claims it was benefiting from illegal state aid, and robustly defended the legal action from Austria that the British Government’s agreement to pay EDF double the current electricity price for the energy Hinkley C will produce.

April 25, 2016 Posted by | France, Legal | 1 Comment

Employee’s legal threat hangs over EDF’s U.K. Nuclear Project

justiceflag-franceEDF Unions Threaten to Go to Court Over U.K. Nuclear Project, Bloomberg, April 22, 2016

  • Employee representatives ask to be consulted before decision
  • Trade unions say they’ll sue if not consulted in advance

  • Electricite de France SA’s unions are threatening to take the company to court if employees are not consulted in advance on a decision concerning a proposed 18 billion-pound ($25.8 billion) U.K. atomic plant project.

    EDF’s workers committee, which includes representatives from the biggest unions, met near Paris and voted to take legal action should the company fail to consult employees on Hinkley Point, according to a statement Thursday. The project is key to EDF earnings and has prompted disagreements between management and unions, it said.

    “We ask that the workers’ committee is consulted before any decision by management or the board,” the committee said. If that didn’t happen then “the committee would be forced to take legal action to have any decision linked to the Hinkley Point project suspended or annulled.”

     The threat marks the latest attempt by workers to delay a decision, given concerns about EDF’s finances amid falling power prices across Europe. Union FO has already threatened to call for a strike. EAS, an association of EDF employees holding the company’s shares, is asking the stock market regulator to require that the French government, which owns 85 percent of EDF, repurchases shares at the initial public offering price…..http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-21/edf-unions-threaten-to-go-to-court-over-u-k-nuclear-project

April 25, 2016 Posted by | employment, France, Legal | Leave a comment

Global nuclear salesmen still not happy with India’s Nuclear Liability Law

fighters-marketing-1Concern 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

All India | Press Trust of India April 24, 2016  NEW DELHI:  A month after India and France signed an agreement to take forward a deal to supply six nuclear reactors for Jaitapur plant, French firm EDF has said concern over India’s liability law still remains and that it will give a fresh pricing proposal for these units.

The fresh techno-commercial proposal will also take into account India’s concern over high per unit tariff, French government officials said.

 “EDF has raised concerns about the Right to Recourse pertaining to Clause 17 (a), (b) and (c) and Clause 46 of the Civil Liability Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act 2010,” the official 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.

Clause 46 of the CLND Act says, “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt the operator from any proceedings which might, apart from this Act, be instituted against such operator.”

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.

Following this, just before President Barack Obama’s visit to the country, India announced plans to build a Nuclear Insurance Pool to address the issue.

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.

April 25, 2016 Posted by | India, Legal, marketing of nuclear, Reference | Leave a comment

EDF plan to help finance Hinkley nuclear project could be illegal

justiceflag-EULegal 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.”

April 23, 2016 Posted by | France, Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Judge rules against proposed Turkey Point nuclear plans

judge-1Flag-USACourt 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/

April 22, 2016 Posted by | Legal, USA | 1 Comment

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

April 22, 2016 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

France’s nuclear corporation EDF warned on legal action over the Hinkley nuclear project debacle

text Hinkley cancelledPoster EDF menteurPressure 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

April 20, 2016 Posted by | France, Legal, politics, UK | Leave a comment

A future of litigation doesn’t augur well for Japan’s nuclear industry

judge-1flag-japanJapan’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……..

to Hiroyuki Kawai, one of the leading legal campaigners against Japan’s reactors, independence from nuclear experts and national energy strategy is the whole point of the courts.

“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

April 8, 2016 Posted by | Japan, Legal | Leave a comment

Fishermen suing Japanese govt over radiation from 1950s atomic tests

Bikini-Atoll-bombJapanese 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.

April 8, 2016 Posted by | Japan, Legal | Leave a comment

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)

April 1, 2016 Posted by | India, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

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

March 20, 2016 Posted by | India, Japan, Legal | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »