Letter: Sizewell B decision
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Tom Wilkie is wrong to claim a 'notable piece of dithering' by HM Inspectorate of Pollution in considering the Sizewell B application ('Quiet meltdown of the atomic dream', 4 July).
The fact that a decision was not made earlier this year results from our acting in accordance with the High Court decision of 4 March in the Thorp case. The judgement in that case, by Mr Justice Potts, made it clear that there was a legal obligation to consider the issue of 'justification' when considering an application for authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act. The further consultation period required expired last month.
We, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, are actively considering application in the light of those responses.
Yours sincerely,
DAVID SLATER
Director and Chief Inspector
HM Inspectorate of Pollution
London, SW1
6 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments