Claims that 300,000 tonnes of mud due to be dumped off Cardiff Bay is toxic are “wrong, alarmist and go against all internationally-accepted scientific evidence”. Controversial plans to dispose of mud from the Hinkley Point C nuclear project are being scrutinised by members of the Welsh assembly. Campaigners want further testing. But the company behind the project said the mud had been tested “independently to highly conservative standards”. The disposal is needed as part of EDF’s £19.6bn Hinkley C power plant building project. Chris Fayers, EDF’s head of environment, said the standards employed were supported by Natural Resouces Wales (NRW), Public Health Wales, the Environment Agency, UK Government and the United Nations. The mud was “not radioactive” and posed no threat to human health or the environment, he told an assembly committee.
BBC 5th Dec 2017 read more »
Anger over plans to dump “radioactive” mud in the Bristol Channel near Cardiff coast is “wrong, alarmist and goes against internationally-accepted scientific evidence”, AMs have been told. EDF Energy has defended plans to move hundreds of thousands of tonnes of mud from near Hinkley Point to an area in the Bristol Channel known as Cardiff Grounds. Giving evidence to a petitions committee, EDF Energy officials said there was “no risk” to human health or the environment over plans to move 300,000 tonnes of sediment from the site of the Hinkley Point C to a sandbank near Cardiff.
Wales Online 6th Dec 2017 read more »
The European Court of Justice has confirmed the inadmissibility of Greenpeace Energy’s application for annulment of the Commission’s decision approving State aid for the nuclear power plant, Hinkley Point C. It is clear that the nuclear power station will have a significant impact on the environment. Yet, despite the Aarhus Convention clearly requiring State Parties to allow NGOs to have access to justice, environmental NGOs do not have access to the EU courts to challenge EU decisions that allegedly breach environmental laws. In the present case, Greenpeace Energy sought to challenge the State aid under Article 263(4) TFEU as a potential competitor on the energy market. However, the Court of Justice found that Greenpeace Energy had failed to show that its competitive position would be substantially affected by the State aid and, as a result, found the application inadmissible. Regrettably, besides stating that this criterion had not been met, the Court failed to give guidance on its application in practice. The case highlights the challenges relating to access to justice in environmental matters, and specifically State aid cases, notably in view of the Court’s interpretation of the “individual concern” criterion provided in Article 263(4) TFEU.
Client Earth 5th Dec 2017 read more »
