Results 1 - 8 of 8
Results 1 - 8 of 8. Search took: 0.023 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] For the construction of Hinkley Point C and D, EdF demanded state subsidies from the British government in 2013 because otherwise it would not be economically viable. The EU approved certain measures as aid to promote the project. The Republic of Austria appealed against this decision, which was, however, rejected by the European Court (EC). Austria has appealed against this decision to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
[de]Fuer den Bau von Hinkley Point C und D forderte EdF 2013 von der britischen Regierung staatliche Subventionen, weil es sonst wirtschaftlich nicht rentabel sei. Zur staatlichen Foerderung des Projekts wurden von der EU bestimmte Massnahmen als Beihilfe genehmigt. Die Republik Oesterreich klagten gegen diesen Bescheid, die jedoch vom Europaeischen Gericht (EuG) abgewiesen wurden. Oesterreich hat gegen dieses Urteil Rechtsmittel zum EuGH eingelegt.
[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] After 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, Kudankulam nuclear project in South India however became the rallying point of large-scale protests. Agitators argued shutting down the Kudankulam project citing legal irregularities and safety comprises, and government on the other hand was convinced about the safety and desirability of the project. The project was finally challenged before the Madras High Court and as appeal before the Supreme Court of India. In this paper, using Protection Motivation Theory, we construct a narrative through public apprehension how judiciary performed the role of risk adjudicator and communicator. The court concluded that the project is safe; effectively persuading both the sides to see rationality in the arguments made. (author)
[en] This document is the mail sent by an association to the public prosecutor to bring a complaint against the CEA for several infringements related to the law on basic nuclear installations in its establishment of Cadarache, and more particularly in its STD installation which is used for the processing and packaging of solid wastes. This letter presents the role of the association and the concerned installation, describes an incident which occurred in October 2017 (fall of a parcel of radioactive wastes), and indicates the various alleged offences with respect to different articles of the Code of the Environment, of the Penal Code. Some documents are joined: an incident declaration by the ASN, a press article, and a decision of the ASN chairman
[en] There have been many cases of lawsuits claiming to suspend the operation, contradicting the passing of the examination approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Study Group is working with the aim of clarifying what is a technical problem, and aiming to show justice on technical points that have not been explained in court. It is summarized as an interim report of this activity. The divided reports from 1st report to 4th report will be reported with clarifying issues. (author)