Results 1 - 7 of 7
Results 1 - 7 of 7. Search took: 0.016 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] Highlights: • EIA process in Turkey is that public participation and opinion in environmental decision-making processes are not binding. • EIA process has to be transparent and participatory. These commissions need to include members from nongovernmental organizations. • Investors and EIA firms should not be in direct contact with each other. • An independent and impartial intermediary structure should be established. • Environment courts are of great importance just like specialized courts such as tax courts, labor courts and family courts. - Abstract: In Turkey, as a developing country, environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a critical key for environmental protection. EIA is not regulated in Turkey by means of law, but through a decree put into force on the basis of the relevant provision of the Environmental Law. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System, which embodies the “prevention principle” of the environmental law, is an important tool for environmental protection. This tool has a private importance for Turkey since it is a developing country, and it entered the Turkish law in 1983 with the Environmental Law. Besides, the EIA Regulation, which shows the application principles, became effective in 1993. Because Turkey is a candidate for European Union (EU), the EIA Regulation has been changed due to the EU compliance procedure, and its latest version became valid in 2014. This study aims to emphasize The EIA system in Turkey to supervise the efficiency of this procedure and point the success level. According to the methods, firstly In the introduction part, general EIA concept, its importance, and some notations are mentioned. Following that, the legislation, which builds the EIA system, has been analyzed starting from the 1982 Turkish Constitution. Then, the legislation rules are explained due to the basic steps of the EIA procedure and analysed court decisions. In order to shed light upon the application, the EIA final decisions given until today, the results, and their distributions to the industries are assessed.
[en] Takahama unit No.3 is KEPCO's first unit that has passed the safety screening against the new regulatory requirements. A new regulation 'The Review for Safety Improvement on Nuclear Power Plants' was started by NRA (Nuclear Regulation Authority) and requires operators to report the results, at periodic intervals, of the review on operator's voluntary activities for safety improvements and effects of operator's performance. In this lecture, I will explain Takahama Unit 3's activities. (author)
[en] Nuclear power plants have been restarted, and trials on driving injunctions are being made in some places in Japan. As in the case of responding to Pyroclastic flow, the recent issue has shifted from the academic task to the inter-discipline problem between science and society, such as matching risk recognition with society. In the paper, we would like to explain the discussion points and find out the direction of solution by looking at some experiences and achievements in the areas other than nuclear sector. (author)
[en] This article summarises Japan's legal framework concerning access to the courts as well as recent court decisions concerning the operation of nuclear reactors. In Japan, only individuals have standing to sue; organisations and groups cannot establish standing. In practice, however, the court tends to admit standing for individuals more flexibly than before and a wide range of people are involved in actions concerning nuclear reactors. In addition, actions for one nuclear reactor can be filed multiple times without any time limit. These overall features ensure access to the courts for ordinary citizens. The Ikata Supreme Court decision established the framework for administrative cases where a licensing decision for the construction of a nuclear installation is disputed. The judgment, to some extent, respects the scientific and technical decisions of the regulatory authority, the administrative agency with extensive scientific and technological expertise, but tries to exercise some legal control by focusing on the regulatory standards and decision-making process. There is not yet a Supreme Court decision outlining the framework for civil cases. Some lower court decisions followed the Ikata Supreme Court decision while others did not. In all decisions, however, the NRA's licensing decisions were no longer easily accepted by the court in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident. As mentioned above, the Ikata Supreme Court decision respects the expert decisions of the regulatory authority, but the experience of the severe accident has undermined confidence in the regulatory authority, which may affect judges' attitudes towards the NRA's safety review. The judicial review standards of the Ikata Supreme Court decision will continue to be applicable only if public confidence in the regulatory authority's expert decisions is maintained in our society. As suggested by some recent court decisions, new safety targets and regulatory standards set by the NRA, as well as its restart review process, should help it regain the confidence of our society. Although public participation and information disclosure have not been regarded as major legal issues in construction licensing, these aspects should now attract more concern in the Japanese legal framework. This article focuses on two issues: (1) how all citizens are ensured access to the courts and (2) how judges, who are legal rather than technical experts, review the licensing decisions or safety of nuclear reactors, a subject that requires a deep understanding of nuclear technology. Section II provides an overview of the regulations for the construction and operation of nuclear reactors, which is necessary to understand the court decisions. Section III summarises the legal framework concerning access to the courts in both administrative and civil cases. Sections IV and V describe the standards of judicial review applied to licensing decisions and safety of nuclear reactors. Although the Supreme Court established its standards of judicial review in administrative cases, it has not yet handed down any important decision in a civil case. Accordingly, lower court decisions are split in civil cases: some courts follow the approach in administrative cases, while others do not, particularly after the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident. Section IV first describes the Supreme Court's standards of review for administrative cases and then Section V shows the different approaches in civil cases
[en] By means of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), environmental impacts associated with Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) can be identified and evaluated. International approaches and guidelines indicate that nuclear newcomer countries such as Kenya need to ensure that the national legal and regulatory framework for en-vironmental protection accounts for the unique safety and environmental aspects of such an endeavor. In par-ticular, existing laws may require amendment and/or supplement. Moreover, the responsibilities of the en-vironmental agency and nuclear regulatory body, in environmental oversight of NPPs will need to be legally defined in order to prevent overlapping of responsibilities and to minimize the potential for project delay. Case histories of countries with advanced nuclear power programmes were performed to identify strategies which align with best environmental management practices, as relevant to newcomer countries such as Kenya. A re-view of the environmental assessment framework for United States and Canada indicates similar approaches whereby the nuclear regulatory body has the sole responsibility in EIA. However, in Sweden, NPPs are required to receive authorisation from the Radiation Safety Authority as well as from an environmental court. Kenya has an existing environmental protection framework, and as a standard requirement, a nuclear regulatory body will be designated to regulate NPPs in order to ensure protection of people and the environment. In light of a nuclear power programme, a review of the national legal framework in Kenya should be done in order to ascertain if amendment and/or supplement of the environmental law and supporting regulations is required. Moreover, in order to ensure effective environmental regulation of NPPs, the responsibilities of the environmental agency and nuclear regulatory body need to be legally defined in order to prevent overlapping of responsibilities. This paper also suggests two alternative structures for the EIA process and authorisation for NPPs in Kenya. (author) .
[en] Lawsuits seeking compensation for damages caused by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident (hereinafter referred to as Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident) have been filed in the district courts nationwide (including branches). Many of these lawsuits were filed against Tokyo Electric Power Company and the Government as defendants. The first ruling was the partial losing of TEPCO and the Government that was delivered by Maebashi District Court on March 17, 2017. After that, rulings at Chiba District Court on September 22, 2017 and Fukushima District Court on October 10, 2017 were delivered. Through these rulings, the issues in dispute such as 'foreseeability of the tsunami' and 'result avoidability' came to the surface in relation with the illegality of the Government. Maebashi District Court and Fukushima District Court acknowledged the illegality of the Government on the grounds that it did not exercise the regulatory authority, and all the three district courts recognized the Government's foreseeability. As for Tokyo Electric Power, it was asked to increase the mental damages compensation exceeding the intermediate guidelines. This paper summarizes these issues in dispute with a focus on nation's compensation, and examines influence on the nuclear damage compensation system and safety regulations. (A.O.)
[en] This section treats of the following case laws: 1 - Germany: Judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court of 6 December 2016: Nuclear energy subsidiaries of three of Germany's four largest energy suppliers and one company operating a nuclear power plant directed constitutional complaints against the 13. Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act. They did not challenge the fundamental decision taken in the 2002 Act to end the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in Germany. The Court ruled in its 6 December 2016 judgement that the 13. Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act impairs the property of the complainants in several regards. 2 - Japan: District court decisions on lawsuits related to state liability following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident: Various lawsuits have been filed in Japan following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) accident. One of the claims being pursued in these lawsuits is the liability of the state due to the Japanese government's failure to exercise its regulatory authority. Fukushima residents and evacuees have filed lawsuits against the government seeking compensation for damages arising from the accident, like mental anguish. As of December 2017, three decisions related to state liability have been rendered by district courts, but these courts reached different conclusions. 3 - United States: Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC (DC Cir. 2018): On 19 January 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied challenges by two non-profit organisations to the US NRC issuance of a license to Strata Energy, Inc. for an in-situ uranium mining facility in Wyoming. The Plaintiffs argued that due to various deficiencies in the NRC staff's final Environmental Impact Statement, the NRC failed to adequately fulfil its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act. Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 848 F.3d 590 (4. Cir. 2017): On 21 April 2017, a collection of uranium mining companies and owners of land containing uranium deposits submitted a petition to the US Supreme Court seeking review of the Virginia's ban on conventional uranium mining