Lessons from the Protracted Mox Plant Dispute: A Proposed Protocal on Marine Environmental Impact Assessment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
INT'L L.
Michigan Journal of International Law
Maki Tanaka 0 1 2
Maki Tanaka, Lessons from the Protracted Mox Plant Dispute: A Proposed Protocal on Marine
0 American University Washington College of Law , USA
1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information , please contact , USA
2 Environmental Impact Assessment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , 25 M
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Environmental Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the Law of the Sea Recommended Citation
-
Commons
Maki Tanaka*
J.D., summa cum laude, American University Washington College of Law; M.A.,
Political Science, University of Mississippi; B.A., Russian Studies, Tokyo University of
Foreign Studies. I would like to thank Marcos A. Orellana, Adjunct Professor at the American
University Washington College of Law and Senior Attorney at the Center for International
Environmental Law, Washington, D.C. for his helpful suggestions in the preparation of this
article. I also extend my gratitude to my friend, Mary Halley Burford, for her assistance in
editing and proofreading an earlier draft. Special gratitude is owed to Dr. Komei Hosokawa of
the Kyoto Seika University Department of Environmental & Social Research, who helped me
understand controversies surrounding the use of nuclear energy through his weekly workshops
held at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. All remaining errors are mine and the
opinions expressed herein are based on my own research.
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 17, 2002, the Pacific Pintailsailed 18,000 miles back
from Japan to England with multiple oxide (MOX) fuel containing 225
kilograms (562 pounds) of plutonium.' British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL)
1. Protest Flotilla Ready as Shipload of Nuclear Fuel Noses Closer to Britain,
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, Sept. 16, 2002, avai
lableat 2002
WL 23601926 [hereinafter Protest
Flotilla Ready]. Greenpeace believes that this amount of plutonium is sufficient to produce
manufactured the MOX fuel at its MOX Demonstration Facility and
delivered it to a Japanese utility company in 1999.2 However, the Japanese
customer rejected the nuclear fuel because BNFL falsified quality
records.3 This incident further strained relations between Ireland and the
United Kingdom not only because the Pacific Pintail traversed the Irish
Sea with a considerable amount of plutonium, but also because BNFL
will eventually recycle the unwanted nuclear fuel at the Sellafield MOX
Plant, newly built on the Sellafield nuclear industrial site.'
The Sellafield site is located in northwest England on the coast of
the Irish Sea. At Sellafield, BNFL reclaims fissile plutonium and
uranium from spent nuclear fuel consigned by foreign utility companies,
and manufactures MOX fuel assemblies for the foreign customers from
50 nuclear bombs. Greenpeace, Countdown to a Deadly Shipment 2, at http://
archive.greenpeace.org/nuclear/bnfl/docs/general-pu-briefing.pdf (last visited Oct. 19, 2003).
But see Kozo Mizoguchi, Japan Defends Nuclear Fuel Decision, AP ONLINE, July 5, 2002,
avai
lable at 2002
WL 23166113 (reporting that Japanese officials and an independent expert
argue that it is theoretically possible but practically difficult to make nuclear weapons from
reactor-grade plutonium).
2. Edward Power, BNFL HeadAdmits 'Stupidity' of MOX Episode, IRISH TIMES, Sept.
18, 2002, at 6, avai
lable at 2002
WL 25947530; Robert MacPherson, NuclearFuel Sails Back
to Britainfrom Japanwith Protestersin Tow, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, Sept. 17, 2002,
avai
lable at 2002
WL 23602411; SELLAFIELD: REPROCESSING PLANT IN GREAT BRITAIN 20
(Bellona Foundation, Working Paper No. 5, 2001), at http://www.bellona.no/pdfs/
wp5_2001_SellafieldEnglish.pdf
(last visited Feb. 2, 2004)
.
3. Mizoguchi, supra note 1; Power, supra note 2, at 6; see also MacPherson, supra
note 2 (stating that BNFL agreed to take the fuel back as well as pay compensation and return
transport costs exceeding £100 million ($155 million)).
4. See Mizoguchi, supra note 1 (quoting the Irish Environment Minister Martin Cullen
that the MOX shipments through the Irish Sea are an unacceptable risk to the environment of
Ireland and the health and economic well-being of its population). Although Ireland
recognizes that in principle British vessels carrying nuclear fuel may navigate across the Irish Sea
exercising the right of innocent passage, it does not want the United Kingdom to turn the Irish
Sea into a "nuclear fuel highway'" Lorna Siggins, Greenpeace Unhappy with Stance on
NShip, IRISH TIMES, Aug. 30, 2002, at 4, avai
lableat 2002
WL 25944754 (quoting Mr. Ahem,
the Irish Minister for Commu (...truncated)