Legal risks and challenges create unnecessary burdens and delays on the nucler energy programme, according to a government-commissioned review published today. The final report of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, set up by the prime minister in April, states that while nuclear technology is essential to national security and for meeting climate change targets 'the current regulatory and delivery model is failing'.
Among the problems identified are overly conservative and costly decisions on managing risk and flawed legislation, including the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, which have imposed disproportionate costs on projects. Another obstacle is the threat of judicial review, including by crowd-funded campaign groups.
It notes that two ongoing projects, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, have faced seven separate JRs between them: six failed while the seventh, brought by a local campaign group Together Against Sizewell C, is still pending. Faced with such court challenges, projects often 'stop, at high cost, to avoid problems' the report states. It calls on the government to indemnify nuclear developers against any damages they incur as a result of proceding with a project while a JR is being decided.
Meanwhile the report suggests that the 1998 Aarhus Convention, by capping claimants' costs liability in environmental cases, is in effect subsidising weak JR challenges. The UK's application of the convention 'appears to be more rigid than many other signatories', it states, noting that other countries including Norway and Italy do not apply similar caps.
The UK's cap of £5,000 for individuals and £10,000 for organisations, was set in 2013 and has not been adjusted for inflation, it states. 'It does not reflect how many of these challenges, while technically fronted by individuals, are often backed by well-resourced crowd-funded initiatives.' It recommends that in crowd-funding claims, the cap should be set at 70% of total funds raised. This 'represents a figure which balances access to justice, and the need for nuclear development without delay'.
Meanwhile claimants should face penalties if a judge deems that the judicial review process is being misused.
The task force, led by economist John Fingleton, includes an infrastructure planning lawyer, Mustafa Latif-Aramesh, a partner at business firm TLT, also recommends overhaul of the planning system for national infrastructure projects.
As a case study in excessive measures to meet the Habitats Regulations assessment regime, it cites the £700 million to be spent on fish protection measures at the Hinkley Point C reactor. These would save 0.083 salmon and 0.028 sea trout per year. The taskforce recommends that developers should be allowed to comply with the Habitats Regulations requirements by paying 'a substantial fixed contribution to Natural England'. This would channel money currently spent on syrveys, assessments and disputes directly towards nature preservation and recovery.
Overall, the government should ’set a clear strategic direction to nuclear policy’, making it a national priority emphasizing urgency and balancing safety with delivery.
No comments yet