David Langlet

EU Environmental Law and Policy

An accessible and comprehensive resource, EU Environmental Law and Policy explains the structure and logic of EU environmental law and enables readers to quickly gain a thorough understanding of the different areas of EU secondary law pertaining to the protection of the environment. This volume explores the institutional, constitutional, and historical premises for the adoption and application of substantive EU environmental law and further expounds upon the dynamics between EU Member States and the EU. The book additionally provides an introduction to the specific subject areas of EU environmental law through thematic chapters that analyse important topics such as climate and energy, water, and biological diversity. Each area is explained in detail, including a discussion of the specific features that characterize each area and an overview of the main legal acts and case law relevant to the particular area.

Resting in Peace? Regulating the Geological Storage of Radioactive Waste and Carbon Dioxide: Swedish and European Perspectives

Carbon capture and storage or sequestration (CCS) and production of nuclear energy are both associated with potentially hazardous geological disposal or storage operations (of captured carbon dioxide [CO2] and spent nuclear fuel, respectively). Using Sweden as a focal point, applicable domestic, EU, and international rules affecting site selection and the nature and allocation of responsibility for long-term hazard management are compared and analyzed in this article. It is inter alia concluded that the legal terminology is partly misleading and that there are many similarities, but also some significant differences, with respect to spatial and temporal aspects of risks and benefits. Whereas disposal of spent nuclear fuel is mainly the reserve of domestic law, storage of CO2 is the subject of extensive EU regulation. With neither activity is the operator expected to pay for supervision of storage/disposal sites or remedial action for any extensive period of time, though the CCS regime is slightly more in keeping with the polluter pays principle. Neither regulatory framework purports to guarantee funds, knowledge, or technology to address problems that may arise beyond some decades into the future.

Planning from the Margin—The European Union’s Potential Role in Spatial Planning for Managing Activities in the Marine Arctic

The Arctic is subject to increasing levels of human activities and environmental stresses. The need to protect Arctic ecosystems and utilize the region’s resources sustainably necessitates effective and coordinated management of human activities. A potentially important instrument is marine spatial planning ( MSP ). The article analyses the potential of the European Union ( EU ) to contribute to the development and implementation of MSP , or related instruments, in the marine Arctic. Although we conclude that EU law relevant to MSP currently has very limited applicability in the region, either directly or through the so-called EEA EFTA States, there are still ways in which the EU may contribute to making activities in the marine Arctic more sustainable. In this context, the EU ’s new ‘policy for the Arctic’ could be an important instrument, but it will not by itself affect the region’s development or even guarantee concerted action by the EU Member States.

Using the Continental Shelf for Climate Change Mitigation: A Baltic Sea Perspective

The chapter addresses legal issues relating to the use of the continental shelf for carbon storage in the Baltic Sea. Following an introduction to the technology, the focus is on inconsistencies within and between different regulatory layers in this novel yet fairly well-regulated field and on the ability of the legal system to manage the many interests and actors affected by such operations. The last part of the article assesses how well equipped international and EU law is to deal with conflicting interests and recent developments in this regard. While focusing on carbon storage, the significance of the analysis is more broadly applicable for any other marine activities that give rise to conflicting interests in the Baltic Sea region and beyond.

Air Quality and Noise

9.1 Existing Conditions 9.1.1 Baseline information The nearest settlement to the proposed mine sites is Hayes Creek, which is located approximately twelve kilometres away. Due to the remote location of the sites, any risk of nuisance or potentially healththreatening effects of dust and noise to humans is minimal. However, appropriate measures will be taken to limit dust and noise impacts, to ensure site safety and prevent dust or noise nuisance. Due to previous disturbance from mining and exploration activities the Princess Louise and North Point project area contains bare surfaces that may be sources of dust during dry, windy weather. Other than mining exploration, little mechanical activity currently occurs on the sites that could generate extra dust and noise. It is noted that Goldfields Tourist Drive and Grove Hill Road (Figure 1.2) attract tourist traffic, primarily during the dry season, and this is also a source of dust. The surrounding flora and fauna may experience some impacts from dust, particularly during the tourist season, however these impacts are probably comparable to the effects of smoke and ash generated in bushfires. It is noted that wildfire is common in the region during the dry season. The climate of the area is predominantly hot, humid and monsoonal during the wet season (October – April) with warm dry weather during the dry season (May – September). Based on data recorded at Brocks Creek Mine Site, approximately 95% of the total annual rainfall occurs during the wet season, and the mine areas can receive an average of about 1,400 mm/year, with variation from about 1,000 to 2,000 mm/year (Figure 9.1). The average evaporation rate is 3,360 mm/year. Figure 9-1 Brocks Creek historic rainfall

Exporting co2 for Sub-Seabed Storage: The Non-Effective Amendment to the London Dumping Protocol and Its Implications

The vast amounts of fossil fuels available and the forecasts regarding their future utilisation can make carbon capture and storage/sequestration (ccs) an attractive option, despite the various challenges associated with the technology. In order to be viable, many ccs projects will have to be transboundary, in the sense that co2 will be stored in a country other than from where it was captured. The most attractive, or even the only available, storage option is often offshore. However, export of co2 for sub-seabed storage is prohibited as dumping by the 1996 London Protocol. An amendment to the Protocol that enables export was adopted in 2009, but is unlikely to enter into force. The article analyses the implications of this situation and explores possible options for States that see export of co2 for sub-seabed storage as an important policy option.