Umweltverbrechen multinationaler Konzerne - Greenpeace

"We simply do not believe in reprocessing because of its huge costs
and we want to renegotiate this contract. We are paying six times as
much to deal with our spent fuel as American generators do at a time
when electricity costs have fallen markedly” 183 . BE has also stated
that reprocessing “…has left us with a service we don’t need, for a
product we don’t want, and at a price we cannot afford”.
The future liabilities for the Sellafield site will be enormous. The only
way to limit them is to end reprocessing at the site now.
Political, public defense activities
BNFL has aggressively pursued peaceful protest against its
activities. In 1999, as a result of peaceful demonstrations by
Greenpeace's vessel MV Greenpeace as a cargo of plutonium fuel
was due to depart for Japan, BNFL sought an injunction against
Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace International and other Greenpeace
entities to prevent Greenpeace pursuing non-violent action at
Barrow. This was one of more than a dozen injunctions sought by
BNFL against Greenpeace in the last 15 years. BNFL also went to
the Dutch courts to freeze Greenpeace International's bank account.
Legal outcome Greenpeace successfully argued against the freezing of its bank
account.
Final Greenpeace
statement
The saga of Sellafield clearly demonstrates that existing nuclear
liability regimes are woefully inadequate to address the full range
and scale of the health and environmental threats posed by
reprocessing and transport of spent nuclear fuel. Urgent and
fundamental reform is needed to provide even a modicum of
protection for potential victims for such time as these practices
continue.
183 Herald (2001) Nuclear Giant in Spent Fuel Switch. James Freeman and Catherine MacLeod. 15 th November.
90