Judicial reviews of two ministerial decisions, alleged by environmental pressure groups to have been in default of international obligations on radiological protection, are examined. Although both challenges were unsuccessful, they nevertheless exposed differences between UK pragmatism and the more prescriptive approach favoured by EURATOM. It is argued that the consolidation of the European environmental programme in the Maastricht Treaty offers further opportunities for nongovernmental organisations to exploit such differences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223; [1947] 2 A11 ER 680
2.
CEC, 1980, “Council Directive of 15 July 1980 amending the Directives laying down the basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation”, Commission of the European Communities, 80/836/EURATOM Official Journal of the European Communities L246/11 (as amended by Directive 84/467/EURATOM Official Journal of the European Communities L265/4)
3.
CEC, 1985, “Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment”, Commission of the European Communities, 85/337/EEC Official Journal of the European Communities L175/40
4.
CEC, 1987, “Opinion of the Commission of 26 February concerning the Heysham 2 Nuclear Power Station (United Kingdom)”, Commission of the European Communities, 87/170/EURATOM Official Journal of the European Communities L68/33
5.
DoE, 1982aRadioactive Waste Management Cmnd 8607, Department of the Environment (HMSO, London)
6.
DoE, 1982bRadioactive Substances Act 1960: A Guide to the Administration of the ActDepartment of the Environment (HMSO, London)
7.
DoE, 1986The Government's Response to the Environment Committee's Report Cmnd 9852, Department of the Environment (HMSO, London)
8.
DoE, 1993, “Decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of an application from British Nuclear Fuels for authorisations to discharge radioactive wastes from the Sellafield site”, Department of the Environment, 2 Marsham Street, London
9.
Electricity Act, 1957Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 48 (HMSO, London)
10.
Electricity Lighting Act1909Public General Acts—Edward VII chapter 34 (HMSO, London)
11.
FranksD, 1957Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries Cmnd 213 (HMSO, London)
12.
HCEC, 19861st Report from the Environment Committee: Radioactive Waste, Volume 2 House of Commons Papers—Session 1985–86, 191-II (HMSO, London)
13.
HCOR, 1993House of Commons Official Report [Session 1992–93], Volume 227, cols. 677–716 (HMSO, London)
14.
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act1974Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 37 (HMSO, London)
15.
HSE, 1979Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Power ReactorsHealth and Safety Executive (HMSO, London)
16.
HSE, 1988The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power StationsHealth and Safety Executive (HMSO, London)
17.
HSE, 1992aThe Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power StationsHealth and Safety Executive (HMSO, London)
18.
HSE, 1992bSafety Assessment Principles for Nuclear PlantsHealth and Safety Executive (HMSO, London)
19.
ICRP, 1959Recommendations of the ICRP ICRP Publication 1, International Commission on Radiological Protection (Pergamon Press, Oxford)
20.
ICRP, 1977Recommendations of the ICRP ICRP Publication 26, International Commission on Radiological Protection (Pergamon Press, Oxford)
21.
ICRP, 1991, “Recommendations of the ICRP”Annals of the ICRP21(3) International Commission on Radiological Protection
22.
JPEL1988, “Re Friends of the Earth”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law February, 93–97
23.
LayfieldFSir, 1987Sizewell B Public InquiryDepartment of Energy (HMSO, London)
24.
McAuslenP, 1991, “The role of courts and other judicial type bodies in environmental management”Journal of Environmental Law3195–208
25.
MarshallW, 1986, “Minutes of evidence”, in 1st Report from the Environment Committee: Radioactive Waste, Volume 2 House of Commons Papers—Session 1985–86, 191–II (HMSO, London), Q153
26.
MillerC, 1989, “Radiological risks and civil liability”Journal of Environmental Law1(1) 10–24
27.
MillerC, 1990, “Economics v pragmatics: The control of radioactive wastes”Journal of Environmental Law2(1) 65–79
28.
MillerC, 1993, “Coke, smoke and national sovereignty: A case study of the role of planning in controlling pollution”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management36149–166
29.
NRPB, 1978, “Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP Publication 26]: Statement by the National Radiological Protection Board on their acceptability for application in the UK”, ASP1, National Radiological Protection Board (HMSO, London)
30.
NRPB, 1986, “Cost—benefit analysis in the optimisation of radiological protection”, ASP9, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, Oxon OX11 ORQ
31.
O'RiordanT, 1987, “Prospects for the nuclear debate in the UK”, in Nuclear Power in Crisis Eds BlowersAPepperD (Croom Helm, London) pp 295–315
32.
O'RiordanTKempRPurdueM, 1988Sizewell B: An Anatomy of the Inquiry (Macmillan, London)
33.
Otton, Mr Justice, 1993R v HM Inspectorate of Pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ex parte Greenpeace) (Queens Bench Division of the High Court, 29 September 1993)
34.
ParkerRSir, 1978The Windscale Inquiry: Report by the Hon. Mr Justice ParkerDepartment of the Environment (HMSO, London)
35.
Potts, Mr Justice, 1994R v The Secretary of State for the Environment, HM Inspectorate of Pollution and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ex parte Greenpeace and Lancashire County Council) (Queens Bench Division of the High Court, 4 March 1994)
36.
PurdueMKempRO'RiordanT, 1987, “The Layfield Report on the Sizewell B Inquiry”Public Law Summer, pp 162–175
37.
Radioactive Substances Act, 1993Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 12 (HMSO, London)
38.
RimingtonJ D, 1989, “Public Inquiry into Hinkley Point ‘C’: Transcript of Proceedings of Day 59”, 31 January 1989
39.
R v The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Duddridge (Queens Bench Division of the High Court, 3 October 1994)
Town and Country Planning Act1971Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 78 (HMSO, London)
42.
WardA, 1993, “The right to an effective remedy in European Community law and environmental protection: A case study of United Kingdom judicial decisions concerning the Environmental Assessment Directive”Journal of Environmental Law5221–244
