(April 15, 1994) British government and British Nuclear Fuel may have celebrated to early their success in the THORP-case. At the beginning of March 1994 the London High Court headed by Mr Justice Pott licensed the gigantic nuclear reprocessing plant THORP on the Sellafield-area in north-west England but the judgment had a nasty thing in the tail.
(410.4066) WISE Amsterdam - In the THORP judgment Mr Justice Pott said European law, enshrined in the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, demanded that if there was to be an extra radioactive discharge, it had to be justified and shown to produce a net benefit to the public at large.
In the THORP case the Government had gone through a two-stage process of consultation and so managed to escape censure. The first was merely to see that the THORP discharges were as low as reasonably achievable. Then, having been challenged by Greenpeace that this was not enough, the government held a period of further consultation. The judge ruled against Greenpeace on the argument that this further public consultation should be a public inquiry, but insisted that there must be consideration of whether the proposed new discharges could be justified as a net benefit.
If this view prevails it is a serious blow to the industry.
At Sizewell B nuclear power station in the South of England the same process is going on. Its start-up and the Government's long awaited nuclear review, could both be delayed for months by this High Court decision. Any delay to the Suffolk pressurized water reactor will cost millions in lost production, and render useless all the carefully constructed calculations that make nuclear energy competitive.
The new discharges have only been considered from the angle of whether they are as low as reasonably achievable and not whether the risk to the public can be shown to be outweighed by a net benefit. With plenty of alter-native forms of cheaper electricity generation available, there is at least an arguable case in law for not subjecting the public to further radio-active discharges.
The authorizing departments, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Environment, are both aware of these arguments. They had held up authorizing the Sizewell B discharges until the outcome of BNFL judgement. Now their worst fears have been realized.
Sarah Burton, the Greenpeace lawyer involved in the original case, said: "if the authorization for Sizewell B is given now it is open for anyone to challenge it under Judge Pott's interpretation. It would clearly be unlawful to proceed without a further period of consultation to justify the discharges as a net benefit to the public. I just do not think that they will try to get away with it again".
If Ms Burton is right, then Sizewell B will be delayed for between six and nine months while the public consultation exercise takes place. So far no decision has been made on whether the nuclear review can take place at the same time. Despite the anxiety of the industry it seems at the moment that officials are against simultaneously running a consultation on the new nuclear station and a review.
Sources:
- The Guardian (UK), 14 March 1994
- die tageszeitung (FRG), 23 March 1994
Contact: Shut down Sizewell Campaign, Tudor House, St.James Street, Dunwich, Saxmundham, suffolk, IP17 3DU, UK, Tel.& Fax: + 44-72873-300