How to infringe all the three pillars of the Aarhus Convention?

– A quick guide for radwaste storage builders –

Implementation of the Aarhus Convention in radioactive waste management

European roundtable, Luxembourg, 8-9 April, 2010

András Perger, Energia Klub

Background

• Location: Bátaapáti, Hungary• Type of facility: deep underground final

repository of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes

• Host rock: granite• Research launched: 1997• Waste management: Public Limited Company

for Radioactive Waste Management (PURAM)• Finance: Central Nuclear Financial Fund

Act 1. Participation

• Information association: municipalities in the region

• 1998-2009: ~10 million €• Original purpose of payment: informing local

people on the research process• Money was partly spent on infrastructural

investment• After criticism of the State Audit Office (2001,

2005), law was changed, allowing the latter• NPP set up a fund for supporting the

municipalities in 2006

Act 2. Access to Justice• When licensing process of the facility launched,

construction de facto had already been started – referred to as „underground research”

• Licensing process was itself problematic• Energia Klub appealed to the Ombudsman of

Future Generations– Investigation is still ongoing– „Principality of the environmental impact assessment

process and of the environmental aspects [… ] was not realized […] during the construction licensing process of the facility.” (Annual Report of the Ombudsman, 2008-09)

Act 3. Access to Information• Energia Klub monitored the process of licensing

the facility• Required all licenses issued by authorities in

charge about research and construction• Most of them were sent, some of them with

problems:– Only after phone calls, or clearing some

misunderstanding– Whether the authorities were not clear about the

obligation to send the information, or they intended to avoid somehow this obligation for any reason remained unclear

Act 3. Access to Information

• In the case of some research-related document access was not denied, but Energia Klub was to be charged for a high amount of money for copying

• Energia Klub appealed to the Ombudsman of Data Protection and Freedom of Information– „[…] I consider the charges unreasonably high. I do

not agree with this kind of restriction of a constitutional right.” (Position of the Ombudsman)

Act 3. Access to Information

• Access was denied to some documentation by the Local Mining District Authority– Information was related to the licensing of

underground research, denial was explained by business secrecy

• Court decided in favor of disclosing the documents