|
May, 2003 |
|
On 4th November 1999, following careful advice from its legal adviser, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs) submitted detailed legal argument to the
Environment Agency that no authorisation for the disposal of waste from the Aldermaston nuclear weapons factory could be granted in law (a) before the activity giving rise to the discharges (nuclear weapons production) had been shown to be beneficial ("justified"); and (b) before the European Commission's group of radiation experts had assessed whether the discharges raised any concerns for the impacts they might have on other EU member states. The legal adviser's arguments were rejected by the Environment Agency, the Ministry of Defence and subsequently in litigation by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. None of these institutions wished to provide support for the need for an assessment of the merits of nuclear weapons production before workers and the public were exposed to radiation directly from their manufacture or indirectly from radioactive waste created in their production. The courts refused to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. Throughout the litigation, the legal adviser ensured the Commision was informed of the position. Now the legal advisers to the European Commission have confirmed the correctness of the NFLAs views*: on 2nd April the Commission announced that it is to commence legal proceedings in the European Court of Justice against the UK government in respect of the Trident nuclear-weapons-carrying submarine dockyard at Devonport on precisely the grounds raised by NFLAs vis-a-vis Aldermaston, namely that the authorisation for discharges from the Devonport site was granted by the Environment Agency (a) before the activity (Trident refitting) giving rise to the discharges had been shown to be beneficial ("justified"); and The United Kingdom faces legal action for failing to comply with Euratom Treaty requirements on radioactive waste
DN: IP/03/472 Date: 02/04/2003 IP/03/472
Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty provides that any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste shall be assessed by the Commission prior to its implementation, in order to determine
whether such plan produces a significant impact from a health point of view in another Member State. Each Member State must provide the Commission with general data relating to any plan for
the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form. An assessment of the transboundary effects arising from the implementation of the plan submitted is then made. The Commission delivers its
opinion within six months, after consulting the group of experts referred to in Article 31 of the Treaty.
Articles 6(1) and 6(2) of Directive 96/29/Euratom establish the justification principle according to which the detriment arising from a new or existing practice must not outweigh the
benefits that can be drawn from it. This principle constitutes a major principle of the radiation protection system. In January 2002, the Commission was informed that the Environment Agency
was about to grant a new authorisation for the disposal of radioactive waste, without taking account of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty provisions nor of the justification principle. This
failure to comply with these provisions led the Commission to open an infringement procedure against the United Kingdom which has reached the stage of the reasoned opinion. Reasoned opinions
are the last step before a formal complaint to the Court of Justice.
[1]
Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from
ionizing radiation (Official Journal L 159, 29.6.1996)
Nuclear Free Local Authorities |
|
|
