Oldbury is due to stop generating electricity at the end of 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6705243.stm
Yet it continues!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6705243.stm Yet it continues!
Legal action has been launched against the Government in a challenge over proposed new nuclear power stations at sites such as Oldbury-on-Severn.
A man who is opposed to plans for up to 20 new nuclear reactors across the UK has taken his fight against Energy Secretary Chris Huhne to the High Court.
Rory Walker's action comes as concerns are raised about the distribution of anti-radiation tablets to people living close to the existing Oldbury power station, particularly in light of the Japanese atomic station incident.
Potassium iodate tablets are only issued as standard by health chiefs to those living or working within a kilometre (0.6 mile) of the power plant so they have them to hand should they need to take them.
Only in the case of an emergency, if people had to be moved to evacuation centres, would the pills be given more widely to prevent the thyroid gland accumulating any radioactive iodine that might be released. But there have been calls for the tablets to be given to householders in a wider area, or at least for local pharmacies to stock them so people who have concerns can buy them over the counter.
Alan Pinder, of South Gloucestershire Friends of the Earth, said a campaign a number of years ago did result in one pharmacy in Thornbury ordering a quantity of pills for those who requested them as a one-off.
He said: "I got some but they are past their use-by date now.
"It would be easy and cheap to distribute these tablets to a wider area. It would also make sense because if there was an incident that led to a release of radiation, the advice is to go indoors and stay there."
Mr Pinder, who lives in Thornbury, said a release of radiation would probably reach Thornbury in minutes, yet it was outside the 1km zone.
Oldbury is one of eight sites where a new generation of reactors could be built to help meet the UK's energy needs.
A bigger station to the one already there could have up to three reactors if the project goes ahead.
But Mr Walker, 24, who lives near the Heysham station in Lancashire, believes Mr Huhne has not met his obligations in law over the issue and is putting the health of local residents at risk.
He instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to launch judicial review proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of Mr Huhne's decision that two new types of nuclear reactor were justified.
Legal papers claim he failed to make proper estimates of the effect on health, particularly in relation to research on leukaemia rates near nuclear facilities.
Regulations dictate that any health risk would have to be outweighed by economic, social and other benefits before the go ahead to build new nuclear power stations was given.
Government faces High Court challenge on nuclear power plans
Calls for latest nuclear regulations to be quashed
Rory, who is opposed to nuclear power, instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to launch judicial review proceedings on 28 February 2011 to challenge the lawfulness of Secretary of State Chris Huhne’s decisions late last year that two new types of nuclear reactor were justified.
According to the Euratom Directive and UK Regulations, the Secretary of State must ensure that the health detriments from nuclear power stations are outweighed by their economic, social and other benefits before giving the go ahead to build new nuclear power stations.
This regulatory process is called ‘Justification’ and is the first of three stages designed to protect members of the public against the dangers of ionising radiation. It is followed later by ‘Optimisation’, which requires radiation exposures to be kept as low as reasonably achievable, and ‘Limitation’, which ensures exposures remain within legal limits.
Legal papers for the judicial review claim that the Secretary of State’s approach to Justification last year failed to make proper estimates of health detriment and failed fully to take into account scientific research findings showing increased leukaemia risks near nuclear facilities. The papers criticise the Government’s decision to allow health impacts to be revisited at later stages after construction commences and highlight that with estimated costs of up to £6bn each, it would be difficult for the Government not to proceed with operating these nuclear reactors once built.
Explaining his reason for launching legal proceedings, Rory Walker said: “My concern is the effect of radiation emissions on myself and my community and the potentially long-lasting impact of radiation on people like myself wanting to start a family. In order to deliver its policy of new nuclear builds, the Government suggests that justification can be carried out after building £6 billion power stations; this is unrealistic.
“Justification is the only stage at which health risks are fully analysed and compared with the benefits. The Government’s approach to justification does not appear to give the protection that the regulations were designed to provide.”
Andrew Lockley, Partner and Head of Public Law at Irwin Mitchell, said: “The fundamental purpose of the Euratom Directive is to make sure that a comprehensive and detailed assessment is made before new nuclear reactors are built. It does not permit an approach which appears generalised, generic and deferred. Justification requires that the health detriments should be considered and balanced against the economic, social or other benefits which may occur - but this doesn’t seem to have happened here”.
The judicial review seeks a declaration that the Secretary of State’s decisions were unlawful. It also asks that the Justification Decision Regulations 2010, which were agreed for the two new types of reactor (EPR and AP1000) on 29 November 2010, be quashed.
In a scientific report prepared for the court, Dr. Ian Fairlie, a consultant on radioactivity in the environment, said: “There have been numerous epidemiological studies into the increased incidences of cancer near nuclear power stations. In fact, if the risks found following the KiKK study, a report commissioned by the German Government, were applied to Heysham, infants and young children under five living within 5km would be exposed to increased risks of cancer, especially leukaemia.”
Heysham in Lancashire is one of seven sites that the Government identified for future reactors. Other sites are Bradwell in Essex, Sellafield in Cumbria, Hartlepool, Hinkley Point in Somerset, Oldbury in Gloucestershire, Sizewell in Suffolk and Wylfa in North Wales.
Interview requests should be directed to David Shirt. Contact details below:
Q1. When was the Judicial Review launched?
The Application was lodged with the High Court on February 28 2011.
Q2. Why have you issued the press release now?
Because we needed to serve the proceedings on Government solicitors for DECC, and as a matter of courtesy, to allow time for the contents to be considered.
Q3. Is the application opposed to nuclear power?
This application for Judicial Review is not about opposing nuclear power but about how the Secretary of State failed to carry out his legal duty to ‘justify’ the proposed new reactors by weighing the health detriments of radiation emissions and discharges from nuclear plants against economic and social benefits. The Government is required to do this under UK Regulations which in turn follow the Euratom Directive.
Q4. What would happen if you won?
The Court could either issue a Declaration or a quashing Order, or both. If we won, the Government would need to reconsider its Justification decisions.
Q5. What would be the practical effect if you won? Would the Government have to stop its nuclear plans? For instance, would EdF have to stop its ground-clearing operations at Hinkley Point in Somerset?
The 2004 Regulations state that it is unlawful to introduce a new “practice” without it being justified in advance. Therefore if there were a judicial verdict against the Government’s Justification Decisions, then, legally speaking, it would be unlawful to continue to proceed. In particular, the Government would not be allowed to issue licenses under s. 36 of the Electricity Act 1999.
Q6. Parliament has already passed Regulations bringing the Justification Decisions into legal effect. Can the courts overturn a Parliamentary vote?
If the Justification Decisions were held to be flawed in law, then the Parliamentary votes based on them would also be flawed and therefore invalid.
Q7. What are the next steps?
The Government needs to respond by the end of the month. The papers will then go to a judge, who may order an early hearing.
Q8. Where will the hearing be held?
Probably in London
Contact Details:
David Shirt
PR Manager
Irwin Mitchell
Tel: 0161 838 3094
Mob: 07720 509912
david.shirt [at] irwinmitchell.com
A man who is opposed to plans for up to 20 new nuclear reactors across the UK has taken his fight against Energy Secretary Chris Huhne to the High Court.
Rory Walker's action comes as concerns are raised about the distribution of anti-radiation tablets to people living close to the existing Oldbury power station, particularly in light of the Japanese atomic station incident.
Potassium iodate tablets are only issued as standard by health chiefs to those living or working within a kilometre (0.6 mile) of the power plant so they have them to hand should they need to take them.
Only in the case of an emergency, if people had to be moved to evacuation centres, would the pills be given more widely to prevent the thyroid gland accumulating any radioactive iodine that might be released. But there have been calls for the tablets to be given to householders in a wider area, or at least for local pharmacies to stock them so people who have concerns can buy them over the counter.
Alan Pinder, of South Gloucestershire Friends of the Earth, said a campaign a number of years ago did result in one pharmacy in Thornbury ordering a quantity of pills for those who requested them as a one-off.
He said: "I got some but they are past their use-by date now.
"It would be easy and cheap to distribute these tablets to a wider area. It would also make sense because if there was an incident that led to a release of radiation, the advice is to go indoors and stay there."
Mr Pinder, who lives in Thornbury, said a release of radiation would probably reach Thornbury in minutes, yet it was outside the 1km zone.
Oldbury is one of eight sites where a new generation of reactors could be built to help meet the UK's energy needs.
A bigger station to the one already there could have up to three reactors if the project goes ahead.
But Mr Walker, 24, who lives near the Heysham station in Lancashire, believes Mr Huhne has not met his obligations in law over the issue and is putting the health of local residents at risk.
He instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to launch judicial review proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of Mr Huhne's decision that two new types of nuclear reactor were justified.
Legal papers claim he failed to make proper estimates of the effect on health, particularly in relation to research on leukaemia rates near nuclear facilities.
Regulations dictate that any health risk would have to be outweighed by economic, social and other benefits before the go ahead to build new nuclear power stations was given.
Government faces High Court challenge on nuclear power plans
Calls for latest nuclear regulations to be quashed
Rory, who is opposed to nuclear power, instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to launch judicial review proceedings on 28 February 2011 to challenge the lawfulness of Secretary of State Chris Huhne’s decisions late last year that two new types of nuclear reactor were justified.
According to the Euratom Directive and UK Regulations, the Secretary of State must ensure that the health detriments from nuclear power stations are outweighed by their economic, social and other benefits before giving the go ahead to build new nuclear power stations.
This regulatory process is called ‘Justification’ and is the first of three stages designed to protect members of the public against the dangers of ionising radiation. It is followed later by ‘Optimisation’, which requires radiation exposures to be kept as low as reasonably achievable, and ‘Limitation’, which ensures exposures remain within legal limits.
Legal papers for the judicial review claim that the Secretary of State’s approach to Justification last year failed to make proper estimates of health detriment and failed fully to take into account scientific research findings showing increased leukaemia risks near nuclear facilities. The papers criticise the Government’s decision to allow health impacts to be revisited at later stages after construction commences and highlight that with estimated costs of up to £6bn each, it would be difficult for the Government not to proceed with operating these nuclear reactors once built.
Explaining his reason for launching legal proceedings, Rory Walker said: “My concern is the effect of radiation emissions on myself and my community and the potentially long-lasting impact of radiation on people like myself wanting to start a family. In order to deliver its policy of new nuclear builds, the Government suggests that justification can be carried out after building £6 billion power stations; this is unrealistic.
“Justification is the only stage at which health risks are fully analysed and compared with the benefits. The Government’s approach to justification does not appear to give the protection that the regulations were designed to provide.”
Andrew Lockley, Partner and Head of Public Law at Irwin Mitchell, said: “The fundamental purpose of the Euratom Directive is to make sure that a comprehensive and detailed assessment is made before new nuclear reactors are built. It does not permit an approach which appears generalised, generic and deferred. Justification requires that the health detriments should be considered and balanced against the economic, social or other benefits which may occur - but this doesn’t seem to have happened here”.
The judicial review seeks a declaration that the Secretary of State’s decisions were unlawful. It also asks that the Justification Decision Regulations 2010, which were agreed for the two new types of reactor (EPR and AP1000) on 29 November 2010, be quashed.
In a scientific report prepared for the court, Dr. Ian Fairlie, a consultant on radioactivity in the environment, said: “There have been numerous epidemiological studies into the increased incidences of cancer near nuclear power stations. In fact, if the risks found following the KiKK study, a report commissioned by the German Government, were applied to Heysham, infants and young children under five living within 5km would be exposed to increased risks of cancer, especially leukaemia.”
Heysham in Lancashire is one of seven sites that the Government identified for future reactors. Other sites are Bradwell in Essex, Sellafield in Cumbria, Hartlepool, Hinkley Point in Somerset, Oldbury in Gloucestershire, Sizewell in Suffolk and Wylfa in North Wales.
Interview requests should be directed to David Shirt. Contact details below:
Q1. When was the Judicial Review launched?
The Application was lodged with the High Court on February 28 2011.
Q2. Why have you issued the press release now?
Because we needed to serve the proceedings on Government solicitors for DECC, and as a matter of courtesy, to allow time for the contents to be considered.
Q3. Is the application opposed to nuclear power?
This application for Judicial Review is not about opposing nuclear power but about how the Secretary of State failed to carry out his legal duty to ‘justify’ the proposed new reactors by weighing the health detriments of radiation emissions and discharges from nuclear plants against economic and social benefits. The Government is required to do this under UK Regulations which in turn follow the Euratom Directive.
Q4. What would happen if you won?
The Court could either issue a Declaration or a quashing Order, or both. If we won, the Government would need to reconsider its Justification decisions.
Q5. What would be the practical effect if you won? Would the Government have to stop its nuclear plans? For instance, would EdF have to stop its ground-clearing operations at Hinkley Point in Somerset?
The 2004 Regulations state that it is unlawful to introduce a new “practice” without it being justified in advance. Therefore if there were a judicial verdict against the Government’s Justification Decisions, then, legally speaking, it would be unlawful to continue to proceed. In particular, the Government would not be allowed to issue licenses under s. 36 of the Electricity Act 1999.
Q6. Parliament has already passed Regulations bringing the Justification Decisions into legal effect. Can the courts overturn a Parliamentary vote?
If the Justification Decisions were held to be flawed in law, then the Parliamentary votes based on them would also be flawed and therefore invalid.
Q7. What are the next steps?
The Government needs to respond by the end of the month. The papers will then go to a judge, who may order an early hearing.
Q8. Where will the hearing be held?
Probably in London
Contact Details:
David Shirt
PR Manager
Irwin Mitchell
Tel: 0161 838 3094
Mob: 07720 509912
david.shirt [at] irwinmitchell.com
Comments
Display the following 3 comments