More about Florida lawsuit over alleged unlawful nuclear fees
FPL, Duke Energy sued over alleged unlawful nuclear fees http://protectingyourpocket.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2016/02/23/fpl-duke-energy-sued-over-alleged-unlawful-nuclear-fees/
The suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida accuses Duke Energy and FPL of overcharging through alleged unconstitutional price hikes that increase customers’ electricity bills to fund nuclear construction costs.
Since 2008 the Florida Public Service Commission has authorized the two utilities to collect more than $2 billion in nuclear costs from customers. The lawsuit alleges that Florida’s nuclear cost recovery system violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 under the Supremacy Clause.
“These two utilities have racked up huge expenses with nuclear power plant projects – some of which they completely abandoned – and have left ratepayers holding the bag,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. “We believe the consumers in this instance are being forced to pick up the tab for Duke Energy Florida and FP&L in violation of their constitutional rights.”
To read the lawsuit, go tohbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/florida_energy/fpandlanddukeenergyflorida_class_action_lawsuit_02-22-16.pdf
Juno Beach-based FPL has 4.8 million customer accounts, and Duke Energy Florida, headquartered in St. Petersburg, has 1.7 million customer accounts.
The suit seeks relief for anyone who is a customer of either of the utility companies, including reimbursement from the companies for costs passed onto the customers to fund the companies’ nuclear projects, a declaration binding on defendants that Florida’s Nuclear Cost Recovery System and all nuclear cost recovery orders issued under it are unconstitutional and void, and an order enjoining defendants from further unlawful charges.
The named plaintiffs are William Newton, a Duke Energy customer who resides in Clearwater and is deputy director of the Florida Consumer Action Network and Noreen Allison of Naples, an FPL customer since 1991 and a retired U.S. National Park Service worker.
The lawsuit alleges that since Nov. 12, 2008, Duke and FPL ratepayers have been forced to pay “unlawful charges” to fund various nuclear power plant projects.
Duke abandoned all of its nuclear projects in 2013, and FP&L’s proposed expansion of its Turkey Point plant south of Miami continues to be bogged down in red tape, according to the complaint. FPL is seeking a license to build two more nuclear units, 6 and 7 at Turkey Point.
FPL operates two nuclear units at Turkey Point and two at its St. Lucie plant on Hutchinson Island.
The suit lists as an example that Duke abandoned a nuclear power plant in Levy County, which reportedly cost Florida ratepayers $1.3 billion, and that full amount has not yet been collected.
The Nuclear Cost Recovery System facially discriminates against electricity producers outside of Florida and violates the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause, the lawsuit contends.
Legal challenge to Florida utilities’ Nuclear Cost Fees
Lawsuit Challenges Florida Utilities’ $2B Nuclear Cost Fees By CURT ANDERSON, abc, AP LEGAL AFFAIRS WRITER MIAMI — Feb 23, 2016, A federal lawsuit has been filed challenging $2 billion in fees charged by Florida’s two largest electric utilities for nuclear plant projects, some of which were never completed.
The proposed class-action lawsuit filed Monday seeks to stop the fees and recover unspecified damages for about 6.4 million customers of Florida Power & Light and Duke Energy. The fees were imposed on ratepayers under a law passed in 2006 by the Legislature and implemented by the state Public Service Commission.
The suit contends that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause by discriminating against other out-of-state energy producers and that it is pre-empted by federal energy and nuclear laws. It also claims Florida customers are improperly charged for nuclear projects that can be subject to huge cost overruns or that are never built.
One example cited in the lawsuit is Duke’s plan to build two new reactors in Levy County, which enabled the utility to begin collecting recovery fees in 2008. Even though the project was abandoned in 2013, Duke can keep all the fees it has collected plus other amounts deemed prudent by state regulators.
“These two utilities have racked up huge expenses with nuclear power plant projects — some of which they completely abandoned — and have left ratepayers holding the bag,” said attorney Steve Berman, managing partner at Seattle-based Hagens Berman, which filed the lawsuit in South Florida federal court.
Berman’s firm and the nonprofit Institute for Southern Studies say other states, including Georgia and Louisiana, have laws similar to that in Florida allowing utilities to collect such fees…….
According to state records, Duke Energy has collected more than $1.2 billion in nuclear cost recovery fees since 2008. For FPL, the total tops $814 million.
If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, it could eventually repay millions of Florida customers of the two utilities a portion of the fees they have been charged under the law. The lawsuit also asks U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas of Fort Lauderdale to halt further collection of the fees by declaring the law unconstitutional. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawsuit-challenges-florida-utilities-2b-nuclear-cost-fees-37145865
USA govt’s position: its nuclear companies should be exempt from civil or criminal liability
How American Penalties Dwarf the Liability US Nuclear Firms Will Face in India, The Wire BY AMIT BHANDARI, INDIASPEND.ORG ON 21/02/2016 A $48-billion (Rs 3.26 lakh crore) penalty claimed by the US government from Volkswagen for cheating on diesel-car emissions is about 200 times as large as the $225 million (Rs 1,500 crore) insurance pool set up by Indian insurance companies to compensate US nuclear companies for mishaps in India.
If a US nuclear company were to build a reactor in India that suffered a catastrophe, and people were to die in India, the US government’s position seems to be that American suppliers shouldn’t face
. The US believes the Indian civil nuclear liability law, which calls for both penalties, is unduly harsh. Rather than say so directly, US officials keep repeating that the “Indian law is inconsistent with the international liability regime.”
The Indian civil nuclear liability law holds the equipment supplier responsible for any incident caused by the supplier or its employees. The Indian liability law differs from those of other countries because it was drafted keeping in mind the 1984 Bhopal tragedy – where despite 5,000 deaths and effects across generations, no one was held criminally liable.
Although the Indian government wants to protect US nuclear companies against the Indian liability law, critics argued that these companies are using India’s eagerness to avoid any liability, if something goes wrong…….
Indian firms also fined in the US
While the US nuclear industry wants to avoid any liability in India for acts of omission or commission, Indian companies have often been slapped with large fines for violations of US law.
Fukushima evacuees urged to individually file suits against TEPCO
Lawyer urges Fukushima evacuees to individually file suits against TEPCO, Mainichi, 19 Feb 16— A Kyoto District Court ruling on Feb. 18 that ordered Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) to pay a man in his 40s and his family redress for damages due to voluntary evacuation has drawn mixed reactions from voluntary evacuees and other parties. The ruling marked the first time that TEPCO, the operator of the disaster-stricken Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, was deemed responsible for damages stemming from voluntary evacuation by local residents……..
Evacuees from the Fukushima nuclear disaster have filed class action lawsuits across the country. Akiko Morimatsu, 42, co-leader of a national coalition of groups of plaintiffs in Fukushima nuclear disaster lawsuits, fled from Koriyama to Osaka with her two children. She says, ”The ruling is epoch-making for ordering a far bigger amount of compensation than the ADR norms by taking individual circumstances of voluntary evacuees into consideration. If many people raise their voices in the future, the reality of damages will come to light more clearly.”
But she expressed her displeasure with the ruling in that it limited the reasonable period of voluntary evacuation to the end of August in 2012, saying, ”It’s wrong because it’s based on government propaganda.” The ruling reflects a decision by the governmental Dispute Reconciliation Committee for Nuclear Damage Compensation to set the deadline for local residents to continuously evacuate rationally, arguing there was not enough information about dangers from the nuclear disaster up until that deadline.
Violation notices issued to Nuclear Waste Partnership and Los Alamos National Security
Department of Energy Cites Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC and Los Alamos National Security, LLC for Violations Related to Worker Safety and Health and Nuclear Safety Energy.Gov 19 Feb 16 WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) to Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC (NWP) for violations of DOE worker safety and health and nuclear safety requirements. Concurrently, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) issued a PNOV to Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS) for violations of DOE’s nuclear safety requirements. Issuance of these PNOVs marks the completion of DOE’s investigations and enforcement process regarding two events in 2014 at DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
NWP is the management and operating contractor for WIPP, located in Carlsbad, New Mexico. LANS is the management and operating contractor for NNSA’s Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), located in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Worker safety and health and nuclear safety are priorities for the Department, and DOE’s enforcement program, implemented by the Office of Enterprise Assessments’ Office of Enforcement on behalf of the Secretary of Energy, supports these priorities by holding contractors accountable for meeting regulatory requirements and maintaining a safe and healthy workplace.
The violations by NWP at WIPP are associated with two events that occurred in February 2014. The first event involved a fire in a salt haul truck in the WIPP underground, and the second event involved a radiological release. The violations by LANS at LANL are associated with processes used by LANS to package and remediate transuranic waste drums, one of which has been linked to the WIPP radiological release.
The NWP PNOV cites four Severity Level I violations and seven Severity Level II violations related to worker safety and health and nuclear safety requirements enforceable under Title 10 C.F.R. § 851, Worker Safety and Health Program; 10 C.F.R. § 820.11, Information requirements; 10 C.F.R. § 830, Nuclear Safety Management, and 10 C.F.R. § 835, Occupational Radiation Protection. The LANS PNOV cites two Severity Level I violations and two Severity Level II violations related to nuclear safety requirements enforceable under 10 C.F.R. § 830.
In FY 2014, actions taken by DOE and NWP’s inability to earn fee resulted in NWP failing to receive 93 percent of the available fee, or approximately $7.6 million. NNSA reduced the total contract fee that was awarded to LANS by more than 90 percent, or approximately $57 million, with most of this reduction due to deficiencies in the processing and handling of transuranic waste and the resultant impact on operations at WIPP. NNSA also reduced the potential length of the LANS contract by a total of 2 years. Due to these significant adverse contract and fee actions taken against NWP and LANS, DOE is proposing no civil penalties for the violations cited in the two PNOVs………..http://energy.gov/articles/department-energy-cites-nuclear-waste-partnership-llc-and-los-alamos-national-security-llc
Fukushima couple wins landmark case against TEPCO
Fukushima disaster: Tepco to pay couple in landmark damages case BBC News 19 Feb 16 A court in Japan has ordered the operator of the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear plant to compensate a couple who fled radiation, even though they lived outside the evacuation zone.
Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) will pay 30m yen ($265,000; £185,00) for financial losses and poor health.
It is thought to be the first time Tepco has been found liable for people outside the mandatory evacuation area………Analysts say Thursday’s ruling could pave the way for many more compensation claims from such evacuees…….
The sum awarded to the couple, who have not been named but are in their 40s, is also far greater than the 11m yen proposed by a government-established centre to mediate settlements for compensation cases.
According to the written submission, the husband became depressed and developed pleurisy after the evacuation and their children were stigmatised for their association with the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Tepco has already been embroiled in a number of compensation claims. In 2011, the government ordered Tokyo Electric to pay 1m yen to every family within 30km of the plant. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35610249
US Energy Dept cites two companies for violations at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
Two Contractors Cited for Radioactive Release at Nuclear Waste Sites http://sputniknews.com/us/20160219/1035057063/us-nuclear-waste-contactors.html The companies responsible for nuclear waste are Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP), which operates an Energy Department facility to store nuclear waste and Los Alamos National Security (LANS), the contractor that manages the nearby Los Alamos National Laboratory, according to the US Department of Energy.
“The violations by NWP… are associated with two events that occurred in February 2014. The first event involved a fire in a salt haul truck in the [waste storage facility] underground, and the second event involved a radiological release,” the release explained.
The violations by LANS are associated with the packaging of nuclear waste containers, according to the release.
The two events took place in February 2014 at the Energy Department’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, an underground storage facility at a 600 meter deep salt bed, the release explained. Both companies have already been heavily penalized, losing 90 percent of their fees.
In the second event ten days later, air monitors detected unusually high levels of radiation, later traced to an exploding barrel of nuclear waste from Los Alamos.
The storage facility has been closed for the past two years, but the Energy Department expects to reopen the plant later this year with improved safety measures, according to an earlier posting on the department’s website.
Los Alamos is best known as the site where the United States developed the atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of World War II. http://sputniknews.com/us/20160219/1035057063/us-nuclear-waste-contactors.html#ixzz40eL2SilO
9,600 members of Fukushima plaintiff association suing Japanese govt and TEPCO
Fukushima disaster plaintiffs form association
Nuclear & Energy Feb. 13, 2016 –
Nearly 10,000 people suing the central government and an electric power firm in connection with the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster have formed their first national association.
Representatives of 21 plaintiff groups joined a rally in Tokyo on Saturday to launch the association representing more than 9,600 members. Next month marks 5 years since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
The groups are in class-action lawsuits to demand compensation from the state and Tokyo Electric Power Company over the accident.
The association plans to share information on the lawsuits.
It also intends to seek an extension of a free housing provision for voluntary disaster evacuees beyond March next year.
A co-representative of the association, Tokuo Hayakawa, said the accident deprived survivors of the right to live in their hometowns. He said he will join with the association members and fight until they win a victory.
Another co-representative Akiko Morimatsu said 5 years have passed since the accident, but that problems have yet to be solved. She added that the plaintiff groups will unite to claim that there will be no restoration without support for survivors.
Court action against nuclear reactors in Belgium
Lawsuits against nuclear reactors in Belgium kick off, DW 8 Feb 16 Cracked pressure vessels haven’t kept Belgium from restarting two nuclear reactors that many experts consider unsafe. Now, a lawsuit contesting that decision is underway. They are not safe: That is the basic argument brought forth by the Brussels-based lawyers Pierre and Maxime Chome on behalf of the NGO Nucleaire Stop Kernenergie, which is seeking to shut down two nuclear reactors in Belgium.
Last year, authorities turned off the reactors Doel 3, near Antwerp, and Tihange 2, close to the border with Germany, after tiny cracks were found in their pressure vessels. However, the reactors wererestarted at the end of 2015, when Belgium’s nuclear authority assessed that they were safe after all.
Public opposition to that decision has been building, and various legal actions have been launched.The German city and district of Aachen is planning to take its case to Belgium’s Constitutional Court.The Chomes are pursuing a different track and have taken Electrabel, the utilities operator running Doel 3 and Tihange 2, to court in Brussels. The trial is now adjourned, but a verdict is expected within a month. DW got some background from the lawyers after they appeared in court Monday.
DW: What are the legal grounds on which you are demanding that the Doel 3 and Tihange 2 reactors be stopped again?
Since 1993, Belgian law grants environmental NGOs that meet certain requirements the right to demand that the court find a solution for situations that create environmental dangers.
With regard to the reactors Doel 3 and Tihange 2, many scientists are saying that there is a risk of a nuclear accident – with all the consequences that would entail for the population – because of the cracks found in the pressure vessels. So we are asking the court to stop operations of these reactors or alternatively to appoint a panel of experts to re-examine the scientific evidence.
………We also argue that the authorization to restart the two reactors lacks a sound scientific basis because dissenting opinions among the scientists were not duly taken into account……. http://www.dw.com/en/lawsuits-against-nuclear-reactors-in-belgium-kick-off/a-19034309
South Carolina takes legal action against DOE over unfinished Nuclear Fuel Project
SC Sues Energy Dept Over Unfinished Nuclear Fuel Project http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sc-sues-energy-dept-unfinished-nuclear-fuel-project-36812338 By MEG KINNARD, ASSOCIATED PRESS COLUMBIA, S.C. — Feb 9, 2016 South Carolina has again sued the federal government over an unfinished project to convert nuclear weapons components into reactor fuel, saying in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that the administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to complete the mixed-oxide facility by a Jan. 1 deadline.“The federal government has a responsibility to follow through with its promises,” state Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a statement provided to The Associated Press. “The Department of Energy has continually shown disregard for its obligations under federal law to the nation, the state of South Carolina and frankly the rule of law.”
Federal officials didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.
The program is intended to turn weapons-grade plutonium into commercial nuclear reactor fuel to fulfill a nonproliferation deal with Russia. Under the agreement, Russia and the U.S. agreed to dispose of at least 34 metric tons apiece of weapons-grade plutonium, enough material for about 17,000 nuclear warheads, which would then be turned into commercial nuclear reactor fuel.
The project at the Savannah River Site, along the South Carolina-Georgia border, is years behind schedule and billions over its original budget. Because the facility wasn’t operational by a Jan. 1 deadline, the federal government was supposed to remove 1 metric ton of plutonium from South Carolina or pay fines of $1 million a day for “economic and impact assistance” — up to $100 million yearly — until either the facility meets production goals or the plutonium is taken elsewhere for storage or disposal.
The suit also seeks daily fines of $1 million and the plutonium removal.
The lawsuit has been expected. Last month, Gov. Nikki Haley told Wilson that she wanted to sue, also warning Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in December that the state would be forced to sue if his agency didn’t start making payments. A clause in the law, however, makes the fine “subject to the availability of appropriations.”
The Obama administration has gradually scaled down funding for the project, proposing to mothball it in 2014, citing cost overruns and delays. That prompted a lawsuit, with the state saying the federal government had made a commitment to South Carolina and couldn’t use money intended to build the plant to shut it down.
The state ultimately dropped the suit when the administration committed to funding the project through that fiscal year. But the administration has since said it’s searching for an alternate, less expensive way to dispose of the plutonium, like immobilizing it in glass or processing it in different kinds of reactors.
In his budget submitted Tuesday, President Barack Obama included minimal funding for the mixed-oxide fuel project.
Kinnard can be reached at http://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP . Read more of her work athttp://bigstory.ap.org/content/meg-kinnard/
Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) does not override India’s nuclear liability law
Nuclear still unclear: Does ratification of CSC fix problems of nuclear law? Now that India has ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage, the question is whether this paves the way for firms like GE, Westinghouse and Areva setting up nuclear plants in India or whether the Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CNLD) Act still effectively acts as a deterrent. The Financial Express, By: Sunil Jain | New Delhi | February 5, 2016 Now that India has ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage, the question is whether this paves the way for firms like GE, Westinghouse and Areva setting up nuclear plants in India or whether the Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CNLD) Act still effectively acts as a deterrent. Considering that, on his visit to India less than six months ago, GE CEO Jeff Immelt was quite dismissive of the changes proposed by India, it would appear it isn’t quite the done deal that was made out by the government which, after the ratification in Vienna, said “this marks a conclusive step in the addressing of issues related to civil nuclear liability in India”.
While in India, Immelt had said “the world has an established liability regime … it has been accepted and adopted … I can’t put my company on risk … India can’t reinvent the language on liability”. All that the ratification means, for all practical purposes, is that India considers its nuclear liability law to be in conformity with the CSC; it doesn’t mean that the CSC will now override the Indian law. Indeed, as the FAQs released by the ministry of external affairs (MEA) last year in February make clear, India has believed its law to be in conformity with CSC for a long time. “Based on the presentations by the Indian side …”, the MEA’s FAQs read, “there is a general understanding that India’s CLND law is compatible with the CSC”; at another place, the FAQs states “the provisions of the CLND Act are broadly in conformity with the CSC”.
Strange progress of Class Action lawsuit against Brookhaven National Lab
“The Brookhaven scientific culture still doesn’t understand the interrelationship between humans and the natural world and the lethal consequences their work in nuclear technology imposes on the population and environment of the world. They still don’t understand that nuclear power is a polluting, deadly technology”
The book “Welcome to Shirley: A Memoir from an Atomic Town” by Kelly McMasters links widespread cancer in neighboring Shirley to radioactive releases from BNL.
Class action lawsuit against Brookhaven National Lab moving ahead, Enformable, Karl Grossman 2 Feb 16 A class action lawsuit—begun 20 years ago—that charges Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) with contaminating neighborhoods adjacent to it will be moving ahead again in New York State Supreme Court this month.
Court action is scheduled for the last week in February. Since it was first brought in 1996, the lawsuit has gone back and forth between the State Supreme Court and the Appellate Division several times, as BNL has fought it.
In July the Appellate Division—the judicial panel over the Supreme Court in New York State —ruled the case can move towards trial. It declared that “the causes of action of the proposed intervenors are all based upon common theories of liability.” In other words, it stated that the plaintiffs could sue for damages.
But, outrageously, the radioactive contamination caused by BNL—documented in the 2008 book “Welcome to Shirley: A Memoir from an Atomic Town” and focused upon by the award-winning 2012 documentary “The Atomic States of America”—can no longer be part of the case. Continue reading
International Court of Justice sets March dates for Marshall Islands’ nuclear case
Marshalls nuclear case set for ICJ hearing http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/295377/marshalls-nuclear-case-set-for-icj-hearing 1 Feb 16, The Marshall Islands’ legal battle against the world’s nuclear powers has inched forward after an international court announced dates for hearings involving India, Pakistan and Britain.
The UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, set dates between 7 March and 16 March for separate hearings for the three cases.
The Marshall Islands, where the United States tested 67 nuclear weapons between 1946 and 1958, launched action in 2014 against nine nuclear states.
It has accused them of flagrant violation of international law for failing to pursue the negotiations required by the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In the cases against India and Pakistan, the court at The Hague will examine whether it is competent to hear the lawsuits.
The hearing involving Britain will look at preliminary objections raised by Britain.
The Marshall Islands’ case against the US hit a stumbling block last year when it was thrown out by the Federal District Court in San Francisco.
An appeal is underway. The Marshall Islands also filed suits against Russia, France, China, Israel and North Korea.
Japan wrestling with problem of compensation for victims of nuclear accidents
Panel begins debate on limit of compensation in event of nuclear accident http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/24/national/panel-begins-debate-limit-compensation-event-nuclear-accident/#.VqUt4Jp97Gh JIJI The Japan Atomic Energy Commission has started full discussions by experts on whether to limit the power plant operator’s liability to pay damage compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.
Currently, nuclear plant operators in Japan bear unlimited liability for compensation, but some experts demand that a ceiling be set for their responsibility.
The discussions are expected to be difficult, as limiting the liability would raise the problem of how to compensate affected people and businesses for the damage in excess of the limit.
For the March 2011 triple meltdown accident at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s disaster-stricken Fukushima No. 1 plant, Tepco shoulders full liability for compensation under the nuclear compensation law.
But as Tepco alone cannot finance all the costs for compensation payments and decontamination work, the government set aside ¥9 trillion in assistance, which has been provided to the company through Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corp., a public-private organization. Tepco repays the aid little by little.
Electric power industry people have been pushing for a cap on nuclear plant operators’ liability for compensation. “If the sky’s the limit for compensation, we cannot project an outlook for our nuclear energy business,” a senior official of a major power utility said.
In line with the government’s policy of continuing to use nuclear energy, an expert panel of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission started debate last year on any problems with the current compensation regime.
Some panel members argued for a limited liability system. “Shouldering risks that go beyond the limit of the private sector will impede fund procurement by electric power companies,” one member said.
On the other hand, a separate member said, “Limited liability is not an option, considering the current situation of Fukushima.”
There are also concerns that a narrower scope of responsibility for power companies could be detrimental to their commitment to safety.
With the panel divided sharply, a government official said no conclusion is expected at an early date.
The expert panel plans to produce a report on their discussions next year, and the government will subsequently start working on any necessary amendments to the nuclear compensation law.
Even if the nuclear compensation system is revised, past nuclear accidents will not be covered by a limited liability system.
Among countries that impose limits on an electric power company’s liability of compensation for a nuclear accident, the United States sets the maximum liability at $12.6 billion and Britain has a ceiling of £140 million ($199.7 million), according to the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. Under the U.S. system, if the scale of nuclear damage exceeds the limit, the president proposes a supplementary compensation program to the Congress.
USA changes law to make it harder for nuclear radiation victims to get compensation
the directive signals an initial step toward trying to dismantle or rein in a $12 billion compensation program that has made payments to more than 53,000 sickened workers or their survivors since 2001.
Nuclear workers fear new policy will make it harder to win compensation
Department of Labor says nuclear facilities are much safer since 1995
Workers and advocates worry it will be more difficult to prove cases
A fight is underway to get policy repealed in order to protect sick employees
BY LINDSAY WISE, ROB HOTAKAINEN AND FRANK MATT McClatchy Washington Bureau, 22 Jan 16 WASHINGTON
Abelardo Garza was working near tanks full of toxic sludge at Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state last Aug. 14 when one of his co-workers noticed a strange smell.
Within minutes, Garza’s nose started bleeding. The next morning, he awoke gasping for breath.
It was the fourth time in five years that Garza would end up in the hospital after suspected exposure to chemical vapors at Hanford, a 586-square-mile site where workers once made plutonium for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.
Now Garza, 65, worries that a new federal directive the government says was intended to speed up compensation claims by sick and dying nuclear workers could harm his chances of qualifying for benefits if his health worsens in the future.
The directive, which became effective in December 2014, orders claims examiners to conclude that workers at Department of Energy nuclear facilities have not have any significant exposure to toxins since 1995 “in the absence of compelling data to the contrary.”
To Garza, the wording of the government’s directive feels like a dismissal. Continue reading
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 