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.
Pacific islands take on the world’s nuclear powers in court action
Tiny Marshall Islands take on world nuclear powers in court, SMH, March 5, 2016 Amsterdam: A small chain of Pacific islands will face off against Britain, India and Pakistan in court next week to try and get an international ruling ordering them to start work on dismantling their nuclear arsenals.
While nobody expects the Marshall Islands to force the three powers to disarm at Monday’s hearing, the archipelago’s dogged campaign at the International Court of Justice highlights the growing scope for political minnows to get a hearing through global tribunals.
All three are expected to argue that the Marshall Islands’ claims are beyond the Hague court’s jurisdiction and should be thrown out. But many activists and academics believe getting them into court is a victory in itself.
The island republic, a US protectorate until 1986 and home to just 50,000 people, was the site of 67 nuclear tests by 1958, the health impacts of which linger to this day……
In another David-and-Goliath case, the Pacific island state of Palau, that is threatened by rising sea levels, is pushing for the United Nations General Assembly to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the obligation of the world’s nations to combat climate change. http://www.smh.com.au/world/tiny-marshall-islands-take-on-world-nuclear-powers-in-court-20160305-gnbacp.html#ixzz429kkshuW
France sued by Geneva over dangerous and polluting nuclear station
Geneva sues France over ‘dangerous’ nuclear plant, The Local, 03 Mar 2016 Geneva is taking legal action over a French nuclear reactor for “endangering lives and polluting water”. Some 70 kilometres from Geneva as the crow flies, Bugey, in the Ain department, is one of France’s oldest nuclear power plants, having come into service in 1972.
The site creates about 4.5 percent of France’s electricity using pressurized water reactors that harness water from the nearby Rhône River.
It has been the subject of controversy before, notably in 2013 when Greenpeace activists broke in to the plant to highlight alleged security weaknesses at the facility.
The current Swiss legal action is a joint initiative by Geneva’s city and cantonal authorities, which have teamed up on an issue that has preoccupied the region for some time, reports Swiss daily 24 Heures.
Back in 2012, the canton placed an official objection to French energy company EDF’s authorization to create a nuclear waste depot at the Bugey site, but the complaint was rejected by the French government. In March 2015 the city council engaged Corinne Lepage, environmental law specialist and a former French minister, to devise a legal strategy calling for the plant to be shut down.
This fresh Swiss campaign against Bugey, led by Lepage, comes as Switzerland decides to shut down one of its own nuclear plants, at Mühleberg.
The reactor in the canton of Bern will be disconnected from the Swiss electricity grid in 2019 and will be finally put out of service by September 2020 at the latest, its owner BKW Energy announced to the press on Wednesday.
Like Bugey, Mühleberg also dates from 1972, making it one of the oldest nuclear plants in the world.
No age limits
However, despite the old age of some of Switzerland’s nuclear installations, their lifespan should not be limited by law, the federal government said on Wednesday.
On Wednesday the Swiss parliament voted against a motion to set an age limit for nuclear plants………
Worse than before Fukushima’
Quashing the proposal angered some on the political left, however, including president of the Greens, Adèle Thorens.
Speaking to Le Matin, she said: “Instead of moving away from nuclear power it’s been decided to prolong the life of nuclear plants instead.”
Worse, she said, was the fact that parliament “had refused the recommendations of our own monitoring organization!”
“We are now in a security situation worse than before Fukushima,” she added. “That’s the incredible paradox of our energy strategy.” http://www.thelocal.ch/20160303/geneva-sues-france-over-dangerous-nuclear-plant
Court case will unveil ‘the hidden truths’ of the Fukushima nuclear meltdown
Trial in Japan will delve into ‘the hidden truths’ of the Fukushima nuclear meltdown, LA Times, Jake Adelstein, 29 Feb 16, Three former executives of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. were indicted Monday on charges of failing to take measures to prevent the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011, the Tokyo prosecutor’s office announced.
The accident resulted in a triple meltdown that displaced more than 100,000 people and raised alarms about nuclear energy around the world. The indictment says it also caused deaths and injuries.
The trial will center on whether key Tokyo Electric Power Co. executives can be held criminally responsible for what the Japanese parliament’s Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission called “a man-made disaster.”
Tsunehisa Katsumata, 75, chairman of Tokyo Electric Power Co., or Tepco, at the time of the accident, and two former vice presidents — Sakae Muto, 65, and Ichiro Takekuro, 69 — were indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in death and injury. A court-approved lawyer will act as the prosecutor in the trial.
The prosecutors office’s announcement noted that the six-reactor plant, located on the Pacific coast, was disabled after tidal waves triggered by the massive earthquake on March 11, 2011, flooded power supply facilities, which were unprotected, and crippled reactor cooling systems.
The Nos. 1 to 3 reactors suffered fuel meltdowns, while hydrogen explosions damaged others.
The indictment blames the three former executives for injuries to more than 10 people from hydrogen explosions at the plant, as well as the deaths of 44 patients forced to evacuate from a nearby hospital.
The indictment does not hold Tepco executives responsible for the deaths of two workers who had rushed to the turbine room of the No. 4 reactor after the earthquake. Autopsies suggested they were killed by the impact of the tsunami.
All of the former executives will probably plead not guilty, Japanese media reported……
The Tepco prosecution has been a long time coming. Last July, the Tokyo Prosecutorial Review Board No. 5 decided to mandate that the three be charged with professional negligence for their handling of the disaster, overturning a 2013 decision by prosecutors not to indict them.
“This trial will take quite a long time but I feel that ultimately they will be found guilty,” lawyer Hiroyuki Kawai, who was instrumental in seeing that Tepco officials faced prosecution, said in an email. “The hidden truths of what really caused the Fukushima nuclear accident keep coming to light, one after another.”……..
Kawai said the Fukushima disaster was a clear demonstration that Japan, which is located in the so-called Ring of Fire, with frequent seismic activity, was unsafe for nuclear power……..http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-tepco-fukushima-20160229-story.html
3 ex-TEPCO execs face the law
to be indicted Mon. over Fukushima nuclear disaster February 26, 2016 (Mainichi Japan) TOKYO (Kyodo) — Three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co. will be indicted Monday for allegedly failing to take measures to prevent the tsunami-triggered crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex, a lawyer in charge of the case said Friday.
The three, who will face charges of professional negligence resulting in death and injury, are Tsunehisa Katsumata, 75, chairman of TEPCO at the time, and two former vice presidents — Sakae Muto, 65, and Ichiro Takekuro, 69.
Prosecutors decided not to indict the three in September 2013, but the decision was overturned in July 2015 by an independent committee of citizens that mandated the three be charged on the grounds they were able to foresee the risks of a major tsunami prior to the disaster.
Source close to the matter said the three will be indicted without being taken into custody.
But the trial to look into the criminal responsibility of the then key TEPCO figures is unlikely to start by the end of the year, as preparations to sort out evidence and points of issues apparently require a considerable amount of time, they said…….
The Committee for the Inquest of Prosecution has said the former executives received a report by June 2009 that the plant could be hit by tsunami as high as 15.7 meters and that they “failed to take pre-emptive measures knowing the risk of a major tsunami.”
It also blamed the three for the injuries of 13 people, including Self-Defense Forces members, when hydrogen explosions occurred at the plant and the death of 44 hospital patients who evacuated amid harsh conditions…….http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160226/p2a/00m/0na/005000c
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (180)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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 