New legal case: sick USA sailors against Tokyo Electric Power
U.S. Sailors Sick From Fukushima Radiation File New Suit Against Tokyo Electric Power, EcoWatch Harvey Wasserman | February 9, 2014 Citing a wide range of ailments from leukemia to blindness to birth defects, 79 American veterans of 2011’s earthquake/tsunami relief Operation Tomadachi (“Friendship”) have filed a new $1 billion class action lawsuit against Tokyo Electric Power.
The suit includes an infant born with a genetic condition to a sailor who served on the USS Ronald Reagan as radiation poured over it during the Fukushima melt-downs, and an American teenager living near the stricken site. It has also been left open for “up to 70,000 U.S. citizens [who were] potentially affected by the radiation and will be able to join the class action suit.”
The re-filing comes as Tepco admits that it has underestimated certain radiation readings by a factor of five. And as eight more thyroid cancers have surfaced among children in the downwind region. Two new earthquakes have also struck near the Fukushima site.
The amended action was filed in federal court in San Diego on Feb. 6, which would have been Reagan’s 103rd birthday. It says Tepco failed to disclose that the $4.3 billion nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was being heavily dosed from three melt-downs and four explosions at the Fukushima site. The Reagan was as close as a mile offshore as the stricken reactors poured deadly clouds of radiation into the air and ocean beginning the day after the earthquake and tsunami. It also sailed through nuclear plumes for more than five hours while about 100 miles offshore. The USS Reagan (CVN-76) is 1,092 feet long and was commissioned on July 12, 2003. The flight deck covers 4.5 acres, carries 5,500 sailors and more than 80 aircraft.
Reagan crew members reported that in the middle of a snowstorm, a cloud of warm air enveloped them with a “metallic taste.” The reports parallel those from airmen who dropped the Bomb on Hiroshima, and from central Pennsylvanians downwind from Three Mile Island. Crew members drank and bathed in desalinated sea water that was heavily irradiated from Fukushima’s fallout.
As a group, the sailors comprise an especially young, healthy cross-section of people. Some also served on the amphibious assault ship Essex, missile cruiser Cowpens and several others.
The plaintiffs’ ailments parallel those of downwinders irradiated at Hiroshima/Nagasaki (1945), during atmospheric Bomb tests (1946-1963), and from the radiation releases at Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986). Among them are reproductive problems and “illnesses such as Leukemia, ulcers, gall bladder removals, brain cancer, testicular cancer, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, thyroid illnesses, stomach ailments and a host of other complaints unusual in such young adults.”
One 22-year-old sailor declared to the court that “Upon my return from Operation Tomodachi, I began losing my eyesight. I lost all vision in my left eye and most vision in my right eye. I am unable to read street signs and am no longer able to drive. Prior to Operation Tomodachi, I had 2/20 eyesight, wore no glasses and had no corrective surgery.” Additionally, he said, “I know of no family members who have had leukemia.”
Plaintiff “Baby A.G.” was born to a Reagan crew member on Oct. 15, 2011—seven months after the crew members exposure—with multiple birth defects.
The suit asks for at least $1 billion to “advance and pay all costs and expenses for each of the Plaintiffs for medical examination, medical monitoring and treatment by physicians,” as well as for more general damages……..
Filed on Dec. 12, 2012, the initial suit involved just eight plaintiffs. It was amended to bring the total to 51.
That action was thrown out at the end of 2013 by federal Judge Janis S. Sammartino on jurisdictional grounds.
A January deadline for re-filing this second amended complaint was delayed as additional plaintiffs kept coming forward. Attorneys Paul Garner and Charles Bonner say still more are being processed.
The suit charges Tepco lied to the public—including Japan’s then Prime Minister Naoto Kan—about the accident’s radioactive impacts. Kan says Unit One melted within five hours of the earthquake, before U.S. fleet arrived. Such news is unwelcome to an industry with scores more reactors in earthquake zones worldwide.
The Plaintiffs say Tepco negligently leveled a natural seawall to cut water pumping expenses. The ensuing tsunami then poured over the site’s unprotected power supply, forcing desperate workers to scavenge car batteries from a nearby parking lot to fire up critical gauges. Tepco belatedly dispatched 11 power supply trucks that were immediately stuck in traffic.
Similar reports of fatal cost-cutting, mismanagement and the use and abuse of untrained personnel run throughout the 65-page complaint.
Attorney Bonner will explain much of it on the Solartopia Radio show at 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday, Feb. 11.
Some 4,000 supporters have signed petitions at nukefree.org, moveon.org, Avaaz and elsewhere.
Feb. 11—like the eleventh day of every month—will be a worldwide fast day for those supporting the victims of Fukushima’s deepening disaster.
The future of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, the nuclear power industry and a growing group young sailors tragically afflicted by Fukushima’s secret fallout will be hanging in the balance.
Visit EcoWatch’s FUKUSHIMA page for more related news on this topic. Harvey Wasserman edits www.nukefree.org, where petitions calling for the repeal of Japan’s State Secrets Act and a global takeover at Fukushima are linked. He is author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth. http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/09/u-s-sailors-fukushima-radiation/
Nuclear waste dumps can be forced on local communities – new British law
Law changed so nuclear waste dumps can be forced on local communities http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/05/law-changed-so-nuclear-waste-dumps-can-be-forced-on-local-communities Legislation rushed through in the final hours of parliament allows local planning laws to be bypassed, seriously alarming anti-nuclear campaigners Nuclear waste dumps can be imposed on local communities without their support under a new law rushed through in the final hours of parliament.Under the latest rules, the long search for a place to store Britain’s stockpile of 50 years’ worth of the most radioactive waste from power stations, weapons and medical use can be ended by bypassing local planning.
Since last week, the sites are now officially considered “nationally significant infrastructure projects” and so will be chosen by the secretary of state for energy. He or she would get advice from the planning inspectorate, but would not be bound by the recommendation. Local councils and communities can object to details of the development but cannot stop it altogether.
The move went barely noticed as it was passed late on the day before parliament was prorogued for the general election, but has alarmed local objectors and anti-nuclear campaigners.
Friends of the Earth’s planning advisor, Naomi Luhde-Thompson, said: “Communities will be rightly concerned about any attempts to foist a radioactive waste dump on them. We urgently need a long-term management plan for the radioactive waste we’ve already created, but decisions mustn’t be taken away from local people who have to live with the impacts.”
Objectors worry that ministers are desperate to find a solution to the current radioactive waste problem to win public support to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Zac Goldsmith, one of the few government MPs who broke ranks to vote against the move, criticised the lack of public debate about such a “big” change. “Effectively it strips local authorities of the ability to stop waste being dumped in their communities,” he said.
Labour abstained in the vote, indicating that a future government will not want to reverse the change of rules. However, the shadow energy minister, Julie Elliott, has warned that the project is expected to take 27 years to build even after a preferred site was identified and would cost £4bn-5.6bn a year to build, plus the cost of running it for 40 years.
Since the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found in 1976 that it was “morally wrong” to keep generating nuclear waste without a demonstrably safe way of storing the waste, there have been at least four attempts to find the right site, all of them shelved after strong protest.
There are now 4.5m cubic metres of accumulated radioactive waste kept in secure containers at sites across Britain, though only 1,100m3 of this is the most controversial high-level waste, and 290,000m3 is intermediate-level waste. Itcosts £3bn a year to manage the nuclear waste mountain, of which £2bn comes from taxpayers.
The most recent proposal for a more permanent solution was to ask local authorities to volunteer to examine whether they could host the development. Initially, a coalition of Cumbria county council and Copeland and Allerdale borough councils put their names forward, but the policy stalled in 2013 when the county council pulled out.
Last year, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published awhite paper which said ministers would prefer to work with public support, but reserved the right to take more aggressive action on planning if “at some point in the future such an approach does not look likely to work”.
The day before parliament rose, MPs voted in an unusual paper ballot to implement a two-page statutory instrument which adds nuclear waste storage to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects in England, via the 2008 Planning Act.
Officials have said approval depends on a “test of public support” and any site would undergo extensive geological safety tests.
Copeland borough council, one of the two areas most affected by any such development at Sellafield, said it was pleased with the government’s change to planning rules.
Radiation-Free Lakeland – set up to block the Sellafield proposal because they claim there is no evidence deep storage is safe or that the geology of Cumbria is suitable – claimed, however, “the test of public support is a fig leaf: the government hast’t said what the public support will be”.
The only existing high-level radioactive underground waste storage, in New Mexico, USA, has been closed since last year following two accidents.
Germany has put similar plans for burying high-level waste on hold and four other countries, including France and Japan, are examining the idea.
Lawsuit against Japanese government by Fukushima residents
Fukushima residents suing government for lifting evacuation advisories Asahi Shimbun, 1 Apr 15, MINAMI-SOMA, Fukushima Prefecture–Hundreds of residents here plan to sue the central government for lifting evacuation advisories near the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, saying the decision endangered their lives because radiation levels remained high around their homes.
In the lawsuit that will be filed with the Tokyo District Court, the 535 plaintiffs from 132 households in the city just north of the nuclear plant will demand that the government retract its decision to lift the advisories and pay 100,000 yen ($837) in compensation to each plaintiff.
According to the plaintiffs, the government’s cancellation of the advisories goes against the Law on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, which states that its purpose is to “protect the lives, bodies and properties of citizens from a nuclear disaster.”
After the crisis started at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in March 2011, the government issued evacuation orders for areas within 20 kilometers of the plant. The plaintiffs’ homes are in areas that were issued evacuation advisories and surrounding neighborhoods.
During the decontamination process for areas around the plant, the government initially wanted to lower annual radiation exposure doses to 1 millisievert. After that goal proved impossible, the target became 20 millisieverts.
“The government has selfishly raised the limit on annual public radiation exposure from 1 millisievert set before the nuclear crisis to 20 millisieverts, having residents return to their homes still exposed to high doses of radiation,” said Kenji Fukuda, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “This is an illegal act that violates the residents’ right to a healthy environment guaranteed by the Constitution and international human rights laws.”……
“The woodlands and farmlands of the surrounding areas are still contaminated, leaving many of the radiation levels unreduced,” said Shuichi Kanno, the 74-year-old chief of a ward in Minami-Soma who heads the plaintiffs. “Radiation levels have even increased in some areas. There is no way our children and grandchildren will be returning to their homes like this.” http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201504010062
Appeal in Marshall Islands case against USA
Marshall Islands Will Appeal in Nuclear Case Against US http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/marshall-islands-appeal-nuclear-case-us-30067766 UNITED NATIONS — Apr 2, 2015, By CARA ANNA Associated Press The tiny Pacific nation of the Marshall Islands is persisting with an unprecedented lawsuit demanding that the United States meet its obligations toward getting rid of its nuclear weapons. It filed notice Thursday that it will appeal a federal judge’s decision to dismiss the case. Continue reading
Ontario federal court nullified approval of 4 new and rebuilt nuclear reactors
The latest punch in the gut for nuclear proponents in the province comes from a May 14 Federal Court decision to nullify the approval of up to four new reactors at Darlington Station, about 60km east of Toronto.
Among other issues, the presiding Justice James Russell cited inadequate planning for both nuclear waste storage and a catastrophic accident as reasons to revoke the project’s license, which was originally secured following a multi-year environmental assessment (EA). Justice Russell found that the EA failed to adhere to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The Federal Court review of the EA was initiated by environmental groups Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Greenpeace Canada, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (LOW) and Northwatch with lawyers from Ecojustice and CELA representing the application in court.
In a press release following the decision, the environmental groups called the Federal Court’s ruling “common sense.”
Justin Duncan, Staff Lawyer for Ecojustice and co-counsel for groups, said “the court’s ruling means that federal authorities can no longer take shortcuts when assessing nuclear projects.”………http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/anti-nuclear-advocates-federal-court-trouble-ontario-liberal-and-pc-energy-plans
Japanese court rejects lawsuit against MOX nuclear plan
Lawsuit targeting Genkai nuclear plant’s MOX plan rejected KYODO SAGA – The Saga District Court on Friday rejected a suit seeking to block Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s plan to use plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel (MOX) at the Genkai power plant in Saga Prefecture.,,(subscribers only) http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/20/national/lawsuit-targeting-genkai-nuclear-plants-mox-plan-rejected/#.VQ8uJ_yUcnk
Austria’s case against the EU approving Britain’s subsidies for Hinkley nuclear plant
Fighting EU’s nuclear ambitions http://www.arabnews.com/columns/news/721126 ANDREAS MOLIN 21 March 2015 In October, the EU approved a controversial subsidy deal to allow billions of pounds of state aid for Hinkley Point C, a new nuclear reactor planned for the UK. Austria’s intention to launch a legal challenge against this decision has provoked controversial comments in international media. So, why does Austria care about a nuclear power plant being built in the UK, and what are the real issues at stake?
Against this background, Austria feels it has no option but to challenge this state aid decision at the courts of the EU. This action is not aimed at any particular EU member state, but rather seeks to defend a common competition regime, which this decision could render meaningless. In partnership with The Mark News
Legal firm sets out the case against EU Commission approving State aid for Hinkley nuclear project
STATE AID FOR HINKLEY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT: BBH TO PREPARE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE EU COMMISSION http://www.beckerbuettnerheld.de/en/article/state-aid-for-hinkley-point-nuclear-power-plant-bbh-to-prepare-a-lawsuit-against-the-eu-commission/12.03.2015
In October last year, the European Commission approved the state aid scheme in favour of the British nuclear power plant project Hinkley Point C. The German electricity supply company Greenpeace Energy has now decided to take legal action against this decision with the help of the renowned German energy law firm Becker Büttner Held (BBH). A number of municipal energy utilities, such as Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall, are considering and, respectively, preparing to join the lawsuit.
According to plans by the British government, Hinkley Point nuclear power plant – which is to be constructed in the southwest of England – is to receive state support for no less than 35 years. The scheme was backed by the European Commission, which in October last year gave the green light for a state aid package of approximately €23 billion. This means that, starting from 2023, the nuclear power plant operators will be paid a guaranteed purchase price above the usual market price for the electricity produced.
Based on the so-called Contract for Difference (CfD) the British government pays a fixed feed-in tariff: The electricity produced by Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant is to be remunerated by 12.8 cents per kWh – plus compensation for inflation. On top of that, a number of additional, significant state subsidies are granted, including a guarantee in the event of a shutdown for political reasons. The scheme is completed by a loan guarantee given by the British government, a generous appraisal of the future decommissioning costs and the fact that no tendering procedure was carried out.
With a total capacity of 3,260 MW, about 7% of the highly subsidised electricity generated in Great Britain will then enter the EU’s internal electricity market. As a consequence, the Hinkley Point model will affect the European electricity market. Furthermore, the Commission’s decision provides a kind of blueprint for the specific interests of Germany’s neighbouring countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as those of Slovakia and Slovenia – also because the British government is already planning the construction of further nuclear power plants within the scope of the CfD mechanism. The potential locations of these future power plant can be seen on the website of the British Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
BBH’s clients doubt that the state aid granted to Hinkley Point is in conformity with EU competition law. Continue reading
Lawsuit over European Commission’s approval of Hinkley will expose full costs of nuclear
Energy firm sues EU over Brit nuclear plant http://www.thelocal.de/20150305/green-energy-company-to-sue-eu-over-nuclear-energy 05 Mar 2015 Renewable energy provider Greenpeace Energy plans to sue the European Commission over its decision last year to allow the UK to build a new nuclear reactor. The Hamburg company says that the huge subsidies involved in the UK project will upset German energy markets and harm small renewable energy providers, and argues that the the European Commission (EC) should not have given the project the go ahead because the subsidies would distort competition.
Silvia Brugger, director of the Climate and Energy Programme at the Heinrich-Böll Foundation – closely linked to Germany’s Green party – told The Local that the lawsuit is “justified” and an “important signal,” and denied that a favourable ruling would threaten Germany’s subsidy programme for renewable energy.
“[This process] should expose the full costs of nuclear energy and conversely highlight the competitive advantages of renewable energy,” said Brugger. Continue reading
Nuclear restarts in Japan could be years away, due to legal battles
Japan court battles could delay nuclear restarts further
*Injunctions could delay nuclear restarts by years
* Activist lawyers to contest every unit that passes safety checks
* Judge in Takahama case same that ruled against Ohi restart
By Mari Saito and Kentaro Hamada TOKYO, March 5 (Reuters) – The fight over restarting Japan’s nuclear industry is moving to the courts, where power companies face the risk of further delays in firing up idled reactors if judges side with local residents worried about nuclear safety.
Four reactors owned by two utilities cleared regulatory safety checks in recent months, potentially soon ending more than a year without atomic power in Japan, the first such spell in the four decades the nation has been using nuclear energy.
And while ruling politicians and Japan’s bureaucracy are pushing the restarts, the judiciary – which typically sided with power companies before the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster – may be shifting its attitude.
Judges are now considering injunctions that could halt the restarts and indefinitely extend the countrywide shutdown of Japan’s 48 reactors that followed Fukushima, posing a threat to power companies already surviving on government support.
“Japan’s courts have always been hesitant to properly check the state and its legislative process,” but the shift in public opinion against nuclear power may have turned some judges in favour of residents, said Hiroshi Segi, a former judge turned critic of Japan’s judicial system.
The court decisions, which might come this month – four years after the earthquake and tsunami that knocked out the Fukushima reactors – could mean months, even years of delays and hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for Kansai Electric Power and Kyushu Electric Power…..
The plaintiffs contend the utilities are underestimating the earthquake risks at Sendai and Takahama and not meeting tougher post-Fukushima standards. Residents also say the government has not set credible evacuation plans in case of a nuclear accident.
Kaido’s team of anti-nuclear lawyers are planning to seek injunctions on every plant that wins regulatory approval.
“Judges must know that their decision could stop the next nuclear accident,” Kaido said…….
DIM PROSPECTS
The lead judge in the Takahama case, Hideaki Higuchi, ruled against restarting Kansai Electric’s Ohi plant in May last year, a rare victory for activists.
“I think residents could win the (Takahama) shutdown in Fukui District Court,” said Akihiro Sawa, a former official with the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, which oversees electric power companies.
Sawa, now a research director at the 21st Century Public Policy Institute, affiliated with Japan’s biggest business lobby, said he has been warning utility executives to take the lawsuits seriously…….
In the Ohi decision last May, the Fukui court judge said protecting residents’ health from a potential nuclear accident was more important than any financial gains the country may get from restarting stalled plants.
“I am hopeful that the Sendai judge will feel the same,” Kaido said. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/04/japan-nuclear-idUSL1N0VR09720150304
Legal action against European Commission’s approval of Hinkley nuclear power station
Hinkley C nuclear power station faces legal challenge BBC News 5 Mar 15 “The planned Hinkley C nuclear power station in Somerset is the subject of a new legal challenge. A German energy co-operative founded by environmental lobby group Greenpeace is to launch a legal action against the European Commission.
It accuses the Commission of wrongly approving the nuclear reactor project in October following a lengthy state aid inquiry…….Unfair state aid?
Soenke Tangermann, managing director of Greenpeace Energy, said the “highly subsidised” electricity produced by the plant would “noticeably distort European competitiveness.”
The energy cooperative was founded by Greenpeace 15 years ago and now operates as an independent company.
“This effect will have economic disadvantages for committed green [energy] providers like us and that’s why we are going to court,” Mr Tangermann said.
Greenpeace Energy says the subsidies planned for the controversial scheme are far higher than those for wind and solar power in Germany.
Austria – which opposes nuclear power – has also signalled it will launch its own legal challenge against the project, arguing that subsidies ought to be restricted to renewable energy sources.
Greenpeace Energy is also calling on the German government to take action against what it calls “the unfair state aid approval.”…….http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31732679
Investigation needed into Entergy Nuclear’s finances
Vermont AG and DPS join request for NRC investigation of Entergy Nuclear finances Rutland Herald By Susan Smallheer Staff Writer | March 05,2015 MONTPELIER — The attorney general’s office and the Shumlin administration have joined Massachusetts, New York and some anti-nuclear groups in asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to investigate Entergy Nuclear’s finances.Vermont joined the petition to the NRC almost two years after it was filed by a consortium of anti-nuclear groups, including the Citizens Awareness Network.
Scot Kline, an assistant Vermont attorney general, said Wednesday the state had been “monitoring” the petition before the NRC, and decided in January to file a formal request with the NRC.
“We have had consultations with the New York attorney general and the Massachusetts attorney general,” Kline said. “This was an appropriate time for us to join.”
In a two-page letter dated Jan. 27, William Griffin, the chief assistant attorney general, and Christopher Recchia, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, said they were concerned about Entergy’s finances and its corporate parent’s ability to cover the costs of decommissioning the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
Entergy’s latest estimates put the full cost of decommissioning at $1.2 billion in 2014 costs……..http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20150305/NEWS02/703059883
SNC Lavalin Nuclear and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in court over costs of Darlington nuclear rebuild
We’ll see SNC Lavalin Nuclear in court http://www.cleanairalliance.org/bulletins Angela Bischoff 24 Feb 15 In March 2011, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to obtain details of the contract between Aecon Construction, SNC Lavalin Nuclear and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for the re-building of four reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Station on Lake Ontario.
Aecon Construction and SNC Lavalin, not surprisingly, are not keen to reveal just how rich this mega contract is and refused to provide the information. However, the the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) ruled that the companies should provide relevant details, a decision Aecon and SNC then appealed to the Superior Court.
The companies are insisting that they were “confused” by the Freedom of Information request process, which the Privacy Commissioner’s counsel notes is rather odd, considering that these “are multi-billion dollar companies that have access to a wealth of internal and external legal resources [and] have a history of being involved in access to information requests in other Canadian jurisdictions.“
The companies are also trying to use another technicality to shield the details of the deal, including whether it allows cost overruns to be passed onto taxpayers and ratepayers. They are insisting that contracts are not covered by FOI legislation because they represent information provided by one party to another. The Commissioner’s counsel strongly disagrees in her response, citing an explanation from the Government of Canada:
“.. . The intention of Parliament in exempting financial and commercial information from disclosure applies to confidential information submitted to the government, not negotiated amounts for goods or services. Otherwise, every contract amount with the government would be exempt from disclosure, and the public would have no access to this important information …”
Given the long history of secret deals in Ontario’s nuclear power sector that have led to massive cost overruns – and massive debt for Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers – the OCAA believes the public has every right to know more about the deal struck between OPG and these two construction and engineering giants. We would like to thank the Information and Privacy Commissioner for robustly defending our right to see this information.
We’re hoping we won’t have to repeat this difficult and time consuming exercise with another secret nuclear deal – an agreement to rebuild reactors at the Bruce Nuclear Station. Instead of forcing public interest groups to file freedom of information requests after the fact, the government should walk its talk on openness and transparency by sending any proposed Bruce Deal to the Ontario Energy Board for a full public review.
Please join us to observe the proceedings as well as to show your support for greater transparency in government decision making this coming Monday :
- Monday March 2, 10 a.m.(come at any time during the day)
- Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. West (NE corner of Queen/University), in Courtroom # 3 (on 2ndfloor), entrance off Queen St., Toronto
A little sunshine can keep everyone healthier.
p.s. Our Ontario budget proposal to take a pass on rebuilding the Darlington Nuclear Plant in favour of importing lower-cost water power from Quebec has clearly made some vested interests in the Ontario nuclear industry very nervous. Our proposal on the government’s budget consultation website has suddenly been inundated with “thumbs down” votes. This orchestrated campaign to deep six our idea just shows how the nuclear industry really can’t compete with our highly sensible proposal. Don’t let them get away with it! Give our idea a thumbs up right now.
Federal Court decision could hasten the closure of Diablo Nuclear Power Facility
Landmark Federal Court Decision: Will It Speed Diablo Nuke’s Demise? Ecowatch Harvey Wasserman | February 24, 2015 New revelations about earthquake dangers have shaken the future of California’s Diablo Canyon nukes.
In a rare move, Washington DC’s Federal U.S. Court of Appeals will hear a landmark challenge to their continued operation. The suit says Diablo’s owners illegally conspired with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to weaken seismic standards. “This is a big victory,” says Damon Moglen of Friends of the Earth. “The public has a right to know what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas & Electric won’t admit—hundreds of thousands of people are put at immediate risk by earthquake danger at Diablo Canyon.”
Diablo is also vulnerable on state and federal water quality regulations, economic concerns and more. Citizen activism has also shut operating reactors at Humboldt, Rancho Seco and San Onofre. Proposed projects have been cancelled at Bodega Bay and Bakersfield.
California’s two remaining reactors are surrounded by more than a dozen seismic fault lines. The Shoreline fault runs within 600-700 yards of the Diablo cores, which also sit just 45 miles from the massive San Andreas fault—half Fukushima’s distance from the epicenter of the quake that destroyed it.
The two 1,100-plus megawatt Diablo nukes overlook a Pacific tsunami zone, nine miles southwest of San Luis Obispo. Since the 1980s they’ve hosted some 10,000 arrests—more than any other U.S. site.
U.S. courts generally treat the nuclear industry as a law unto itself and rarely question NRC proceedings.
But in this case, says Friend of the Earth’s S. David Freeman, “PG&E’s recent study revealed that the earthquake threat at Diablo Canyon, as measured by its original license, could be far greater than that for which the reactors were designed. So PG&E and the NRC secretly amended the license to relax the safety requirements.”
Freeman is former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Dr. Michael Peck, the NRC’s own chief seismic expert, warned that the Diablo reactors could not meet seismic safety standards. Peck was then transferred to NRC offices in Chattanooga.
The case follows a successful FOE filing showing that the NRC conspired with Southern California Edison to ignore steam generator violations at San Onofre. Amidst a massive grassroots upheaval, San Onofre was officially shut in 2013 (similar violations at Ohio’s Davis-Besse reactor have had little impact).
Safe energy activists staged major January gatherings in San Luis Obispo and San Francisco. A “Don’t Frack/Nuke Our Earth” conference may soon follow in the Bay Area.
Earthquake issues are not the only ones poised to doom Diablo.
The two reactors dump huge quantities of hot wastewater directly into the ocean. They’re out of compliance with state and federal water quality standards. So PG&E might soon be required by state law to build cooling towers, with cost estimates ranging from $2 billion to $14 billion.
The state Water Resources Control Board may meet on the issue this spring. The San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and others ask the public to write the board and attend its next public hearing.
If required to build those towers, which might take years to do, PG&E would ask the California Public Utilities Commission to make the public pay for them. A vehement grassroots opposition would instantly erupt.
PG&E is much hated. Its negligence caused a 2010 gas explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno. Huge state and federal fines, criminal indictments and visceral public contempt have followed.
The CPUC is also under public fire amidst an astonishing array of scandals and law-breaking. …….http://ecowatch.com/2015/02/24/court-ruling-diablo-nukes-demise/
Murder suspect Andrei Lugovoi’s room had high levels of radiation
Litvinenko inquiry: Highest radiation levels in suspect’s hotel, BBC News, 17 Feb 15 The highest level of radiation found during the investigation into Alexander Litvinenko’s death was recorded in a hotel stayed in by one of his suspected killers, an inquiry has heard.
Andrei Lugovoi stayed alone at London’s Sheraton Park Lane hotel from 25 to 28 October 2006. Mr Litvinenko died the following month.
Mr Lugovoi remains in Russia with Dmitri Kovtun, who is also a suspect.
The pair have always denied poisoning the ex-KGB officer with polonium-210.
Det Insp Craig Mascall told the public inquiry into Mr Litvinenko’s death that traces of radioactivity were found throughout the Sheraton, including on towels, in the laundry chutes and in Mr Lugovoi’s room.
The highest levels in the whole investigation were found on the towels, Mr Mascall told the London hearing……..
The Litvinenko case23 Nov 2006 – Mr Litvinenko dies three weeks after having tea with former agents Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun in London
24 Nov 2006 – His death is attributed to polonium-210
22 May 2007 – Britain’s director of public prosecutions decides Mr Lugovoi should be charged with the murder of Mr Litvinenko
31 May 2007 – Mr Lugovoi denies any involvement in his death but says Mr Litvinenko was a British spy
5 Jul 2007 – Russia officially refuses to extradite Mr Lugovoi, saying its constitution does not allow it
May-June 2013 – Inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death delayed as coroner decides a public inquiry would be preferable, as it would be able to hear some evidence in secret
July 2013 – Ministers rule out public inquiry
Jan 2014 – Marina Litvinenko in High Court fight to force a public inquiry
11 Feb 2014 – High Court says the Home Office had been wrong to rule out an inquiry before the outcome of an inquest
July 2014 – Public inquiry announced by Home Office http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31507959
1 This Month
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (283)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 