2010
17-09-2002 – Greenpeace application for judicial review of the licence for construction for the replacement research reactor project is dismissed : An important result, future reference for some other similar projects around the world, was achieved last Friday 13 September 2002, when a Federal Court in Australia fully dismissed a Greenpeace submission against the granting of the License for Construction of the Replacement Research Reactor Project (RRRP)…
An important result, future reference for some other similar projects around the world, was achieved last Friday 13 September 2002, when a Federal Court in Australia fully dismissed a Greenpeace submission against the granting of the License for Construction of the Replacement Research Reactor Project (RRRP), being constructed by INVAP for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO). Greenpeace court submissions involved three respondents: the Australian Regulatory Body (ARPANSA), ANSTO and INVAP.
Greenpeace’s submission aimed at blocking the project, tried to demonstrate, through a cumbersome interpretation of the roles and duties imposed by the legislation, that the Australian Regulatory Body (ARPANSA) has failed to identify, ascertain or take into account international best practice (IBP) in relation to the management, handling, transport, processing and storage of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
In what seems to be a coordinated move, Greenpeace first tried to block the processing of existing HIFAR reactor fuel in France and since then it has been also trying to block the approval of the Argentina-Australia International Cooperation Agreement for the Pacific Use of Nuclear Technology. Using this two front approach, Greenpeace sought the full review of the Licensing Process in Australia, the delay of the project for a significant period of time, and ultimately its cancellation.
The Federal Court in Australia fully dismissed Greenpeace arguments, declared the validity of the decisions taken by ARPANSA CEO and ordered Greenpeace to bear the costs his action has caused to the three respondents: ARPANSA, ANSTO and INVAP.
