|
Britain's
Toxic
Coast
|
 |
|
| Home | Opinion | The Voice of Experience | Editorial (this page) |
|
Comment
on the Public Accounts Committee report on the government's sale of its
interest in British Energy.
A substantial interest in British Energy was sold off to EdF by the government in January 2009. Because British Energy was going bust, it was unable to invest in new nuclear power stations, so the sale was important. The company owned land viewed by industry as being valuable development property. Even at this stage, the Government had decided that new nuclear power stations would have an important contribution to make when existing power stations close, so the land owned by British Energy was perceived as being valuable in its own right. It is these sites (plus a few other make-weights) that from the basis of the current raft of proposed nuclear developments. A primary objective of the sale was to ensure nuclear operators would be able to build and operate new nuclear power stations with no public subsidy - and the government committed itself to this principle very early on. (Not, of course, that any decision has been made in advance of the completion of public consultation - much!) However, due to inefficiency and incompetence - with a soupçon of arrogance and infallibilty, DECC didn't get a commitment from EDF to build new nuclear power stations. A glance at the background of EdF's nuclear building might have proved illuminating for them. Sadly, this did not happen, and the department appears to have believed its own hype. Because of the lack of a binding commitment, EdF are actually under no obligation to build anything at all - whether conventional or nuclear, with or without a subsidy. Actually, some might believe that they could hamper any other company's proposals, too, if they chose to be a dog in the manger and use the "ransom strips" purchased for the purpose. We believe that several companies were depending on the infra-structure to be provided for EdF to be forthcoming in order to smooth their own proposed developments. Without this infra-structure in place, nuclear will become even less viable financially. According to the report: "This Committee is not convinced the Department's reliance on a rapid acceleration in renewable energy to fill any gaps in future energy supplies is adequate, but note the Department is working with the Treasury to determine whether the current configuration of the United Kingdom’s energy market is fit for purpose for the longer term." Needless to say, despite the in-house expertise that DECC pretends it has, it spent £4 million to obtain help from financial advisors UBS. A bit reminiscent of the NDA paying bonuses for doing what they were paid to do in the first place. In response to a question by Annette Brooke, MP, (Libdem member for Dorset Mid and Poole North): Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what steps have been taken to ensure that geological disposal of nuclear waste is safe in relation to the possibility of a seismic event in the future. [314724] Hansard: 5 Feb 2010 : Column 619W Mr. Kidney: The consultation on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposed decisions that the API000 and EPR nuclear power station designs are Justified under the terms of the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004 states that several of those who responded to the previous consultation on the Nuclear Industry Association's application for Regulatory Justification of new nuclear power station designs raised the impact of uranium mining. My right hon. Friend took account of all responses received in coming to the proposed decisions on which we are consulting. The decision documents set out my right hon. Friend's view that he is not bound to take practices outside the UK into account in making his proposed decisions, but that in view of respondents' concerns he has sought further information on the safety regime for uranium mining, and set out the information he has taken into account, including technical advice from Integrated Decision Management. The Appraisal of Sustainability published as part of the consultation on the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement is intended to assess the environmental and sustainability impacts of the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement and therefore focuses on those impacts which arise from the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement itself. The draft Nuclear National Policy Statement provides guidance to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on the construction and operation of new nuclear power stations. It does not cover mining or milling of uranium. Interested
in who Integrated Decision Management were, we looked them up at their
website: http://www.idmsolutions.co.uk
More than 70% of the executives (12 out of 17) have previous high-level connections with BNFL! How independent is that? Is Mr. Miliband correct to say that what happens in the course of mining, transporting and processing uranium and the security of its transport from around the world is no concern of the U.K. customers, or do we have a moral responsibility? |
 |
Who
is Doing What
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Trials and Tribulations According to http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/news/2009/september/10_09_2009-115256.asp, Cumbria County Council and Sellafield Ltd hosted an exercise, named "Oscar 9". Lasting throughout Thursday, 24th of September, and was based around the Sellafield site and the West Cumbria Emergency Control Centre at the Summergrove complex near Whitehaven. Also participating in the exercise were Whitehaven School, which acted as a mock media centre and St Benedict’s RC High School, who hosted a reception centre for acting evacuees. The Sellafield site siren apparently sounded., although, in my home, a mere 2 miles away I was blissfully ignorant of any warning. All the agencies who may be involved in any potential emergency response such as this were testing their readiness during this exercise. Mike Smyth, Head of Resilience for Cumbria County Council, said: "This county has been at the forefront of developing plans for dealing with emergency situations for many years, including an incident at Sellafield. "These exercises are held every three years and provide not only an opportunity to test the plans, but also provide an opportunity for many of the agencies to meet and work together to enhance their effectiveness in response to a major incident." In an interview on BBC Radio Cumbria, Mr. Smyth seemed a bit sensitive to the suggestion by the representative from CORE, that the episode was merely a public relations exercise, yet it is hard to see it as anything different. Whilst
it may be necessary to demonstrate that something does actually exist
in the way of emergency planning, all that was demonstrated was that,
provided
that sufficient notice is given of any impending incident, all will be
well. Quite
how effective this emergency planning would be with several reactors in
the area is a moot point. The usual procedure is for
those employees currently on-site to be interned in their workplace for
the duration. Whether this is for the benefit of the employer or
employee is debatable. (Presumably it makes it easier to assess
who amongst them has had the greatest exposure and eases the proper
distribution of medication.)
Besides, sadly, accidents/incidents don't always play fair. It is our understanding that once radioactive material has escaped then it cannot be successfully recovered. All that then remains is containment and iodine tablets. A religious aptitude could also be of benefit. For the participants, no doubt, it meant many hours standing round idly, wondering what on earth is going on, whilst those in charge played their games and the press took lots of photographs to convince the public everything is under control. No doubt the copy will appear next week, saying what a success the day was, and how everything went according to plan, thus reassuring the populace that, no matter what might happen, the officials are capable of dealing with it. Ah, the benefits of fore-knowledge. We must congratulate the
local newspaper, the News and Star for the article relating to the
outcome of the Oscar 9 exercise. We think it confirms what we
felt about the war games mentality, and we would apologise for
suggesting the the copy could have been pretyped ready. The full
article can be found by following the link below: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/focus/sellafield_panic_was_just_an_exercise_1_616927?referrerPath=home
Anyone with any doubts about the integrity of the companies involved in this industry might care to watch the Greenpeace video about what was found on a nocturnal trip to the Low Level Dump (sorry, repository) at Drigg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49_IU4wzVG8 Although the events took place in 1994, one has to wonder how long the dumping of what seems to be high-level waste had gone on, and what controls are in place nowadays to ensure that only properly low-level waste is dumped there. As with so much else, we have to wonder where the regulators are and how such a situation could arise without them knowing of it. The main requirement for nuclear expansion is 'a change in its PR company' - According to an Energy supplement in the New Statesman. According to an article in a 32-page supplement in the New Statesman back in July, 2007, what is needed is to make the nuclear industry's image much "sexier" by making such environmentally friendly changes such as doing away with Magnox (not actually doing away with the process, you understand, but merely changing the name to something less indicative of a '1950s B movie leader of a robot army that plans to invade and conquer the earth'); images should be 'of "fit" young men in hard hats, like one of those guys in the Diet Coke commercials. Sexy sells'; reactor stacks are 'ugly and scary' - they should be made to look pretty by painting them 'sky blue, as nothing sky blue was ever evil'. Happily for the writer (Gia Milinovich) the change of image was already happening and her article was part of it. The consensus of the whole 32 pages was that clean, green environmentally-friendly nuclear is the way to go. It was sponsored by, er, e-on. Surely, it was not just a cynical marketing ploy? Whatever it was, the suggestion obviously struck a chord with the politicians: |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
| Apart
from the obvious damage to the marine environment, the materials that
have been deposited by Sellafield over the years are probably best left
where they are. Any major disturbance of the sea-bed, whether
from engineering or from recirculating water action is likely to bring
these toxic materials to the shore again. Presumably monitors will have to be installed on the circulation system of any new plant to indiate any leaks of nuclear material. What will the sensors make of material being picked up off the sea bed and entering the system that way, and how would any such monitoring system be able to differentiate between old and new materials? |
Do you want to tell
them, or should I? As noted elsewhere, it is human nature to assume more and more importance until such time as someone says "enough". The various quangos seem to be so incestuous that there is no room anymore for outside influence. Anyone who disputes what these bodies say is labelled some disparaging name, to indicate that they are outside the main stream and that their views are thus unimportant - the dangerously naiive notion that "if you aren't with us you are against us", and thus have to be derided! |
 |
| Editorial | ||
| What
strange times we live in. The government tells us that they are opposed to using green field sites when there are alternative (brown-field) sites available. The Prime Minister himself confirmed this in parliament on 3 Jun 2009 ( ref: Daily Hansard: Column 269 Prime Minister’s Question Time). On Page 10 of the Whitehaven News, 23/7/09, we read: “Mr. Henwood [NDA Chairman] also addresses the prospect of new build, with the NDA set to sell of acres of land around Sellafield to commercial developers”. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is indeed a glorified estate agent with pretentions to nobler things. The idea was that the government would fund the authority for a start-up period, but after the initial period it should be selling off the land that has been decommissioned, the funds accrued being used for further decommissioning, so the "authority" became self-financing. Possibly a Good Idea in theory - like most of these ideas, but in practise - again like these half-baked, ill-considered ideas - it fails. Seeming to have lost its direction, the authority now funds large developments in areas in which there is no decommissioning taking place. One website, www.nuclearspin.org, relates, “ .
. . a Freedom of Information request from South Lakeland Friends of the
Earth, showing that £34m has been given to hospitals,
colleges,
and wildlife and heritage groups since 2005.
Cumbria County Council has a staffer sponsored by the NDA, as does Made in Cumbria, established to help businesses involved in the food and craft sectors. Money has been given to a lifeboat appeal, footpaths, and a harbour wall scheme. The Citizens Advice Bureau in Copeland (the part of Cumbria which includes the Sellafield nuclear facility) has received almost £80,000. In addition to the £34m, the NDA will be “investing” £10m over three years in the University of Cumbria. According to The Guardian, the NDA is spending taxpayers’ money on 'social” projects' as if Christmas has come early”. Sellafield, earlier in 2009, announced the donation of £20 million to community bodies, to enable them to 'purchase whatever they wanted' (presumably as opposed to whatever the politicians thought they shoukl have). It seem strange to us that a company which is costing taxpayers £1.4 billion per year can hand this amount out. All told, this is quite a considerable amount of money and will probably buy a large amount of good will. In fact this is only a taster for what is promised. The nuclear industry is enjoying some popularity as people panic about where the electricity will come from to “keep their lights on”. (A wonderfully emotive phrase, repeated frequently at any energy meeting. In many ways a bit like the constant reminders of terrorist threat - keep people frightened and we can manipulate them more easily.) The picture then is that the NDA will shortly be auctioning off several acres of land at Sellafield. All the resources in the area are concentrated on the Sellafield site. The site has a licence and there would be no need to go outside, into the public domain, with containers of radioactive materials - should the time ever arise when the concentrated waste products could actually be processed. Why then would energy companies even consider looking elsewhere - least of all at green field sites with their need for massive infra-structure with intrinsic high costs? Perhaps the most obvious reason would be cost. The NDA is a profit-making entity - just like an estate agent. It has sole rights to the proceeds from the forthcoming auction and “a duty to maximise its profits”. Almost a monopolistic situation, one might think. A cynic might be forgiven for wondering whether the residents of Braystones and Kirksanton are being used as pawns in a big game. The loser being the residents, who have become what is referred to in war as collateral damage. Perhaps if the NDA were not so greedy or were to concentrate on decommissioning . . . ? Nevertheless, there is some sleight of hand here. While, ostensibly, the income for the NDA will come from the industry, who will ultimately be paying the bill? Our guess would be the customer. Energy
companies are not altruistic by nature.
|
Perhaps
the large bonuses handed to the NDA staff have been merited merely for
the way they have persuaded the gullible politicians that they have
earned it and for keeping them panicked? Lord Hunt is reported as saying, in the same article in the Whitehaven News, that the competition for the low-level waste repository near Drigg, have brought world-class capability to the UK for the delivery of safe, secure and environmentally responsible decommissioning and clean-up.” Hmm. So safe in fact that there have been 1767 incidents in the last seven years. With the paucity of meaningful inspection one might consider that there is little environmentally responsible in what has been going on. How safe, secure and environmentally responsible is it to merely shrug one’s shoulders, admit that reprocessing waste is impossible, put it in a glass bottle and shove it down a hole? It is noteworthy that only Copeland, out of all the councils approached, has registered an interest. Could the largesse be working its charm? Or is it just the propaganda? How environmentally sound is a leak of radioactive material? Will the buried material be made recoverable, so that if, in the future, a method for processing it is developed it can be dealt with? Or a leak require its removal? The failure would only be obvious after its effect has been made obvious, of course. Monitoring will be useless until then. Mr. Reed, MP, seems to have fallen into the usual trap of believing his own hype. (Isn’t it strange, too, how, once elected, an MP becomes infallible and the wishes of the people they purport to represent are ignored, as they get involved exclusively in their circles of Yes-men?) Say something often enough and you believe it yourself, no matter how untrue it is. A typical statement is that the people of West Cumbria are in favour of nuclear new build - note the absence of any qualification. How was this opinion arrived at? Has anyone been asked? The only recent poll we saw actually had a majority against new build outside of Sellafield. The meetings of residents of Braystones and Kirksanton also unanimously rejected the proposals. So, who will represent their views? Why are the quangos and committees all stuffed with pro-nuclear lobbyists? Is it really all about employment and to heck with the natural attibutes of the area? Why does Mr. Reed seek to persuade people that plutonium is an asset? An asset for what purpose - building bombs? Even the big boys, the Americans and the Russians, are seeking ways to decommission their nuclear weapons. Our government, too, has announced plans to reduce the number of nuclear devices they have. Apparently something like 97% of the fuel used by the nuclear generators is recyclable. So we are left with 3% that cannot be handled. That is quite a lot of extremely toxic material to be left holding. The government (and the industry’s own) answer is to keep it all on the individual sites until such time as it can be disposed of or reprocessed. Not the same thing, of course. The Thorp plant has been a resounding failure and has cost £billions to keep going. The MP’s answer? Build two more. Strange logic one might think. We understand that only seven tonnes has actually been dealt with in the last three years. Still quite a stockpile to go, then, eh? Actually, on the figures given, it might almost seem as if the stockpile will grow faster and faster. That the pile is distributed across several sites does nothing to actually reduce the total pile. It also increases the risk of misuse or mishap. The process of vitrification (encapsulating in glass) is a difficult one and one has to wonder about the wisdom of just dropping these capsules into a hole in Gosforth for future generations to reap the benefits from. Akin to Drigg, the newly developed open-cast coal mine at Keekle Head will be filled with material that cannot be disposed of - usually because it would be took costly to deal with and thus not economically viable. This project will, if it goes ahead, run for over 50 years and cover around 173 acres. That is a lot of waste. Reassurance that all will be safe is a little suspect, perhaps. The rainwater filtering through the piles of rubbish will inevitably contain radioactive material. This will be “regularly monitored” and, if of good quality, discharged into the River Ehen. Hmm. Who will be the judge of the quality, we wonder? How wonderful to learn, too, that the sites will not be “tips”, nor even “landfill sites”. A new piece of gobbledegook has arrived to herald the Energy Coast’s arrival. These disposal sites will henceforward be known as GDFs - Geological Disposal Facilities. (Ref.: S. Henwood, Chairman, NDA in the annual report for 2008/9.) Impressive enough to merit a £28,000 bonus on its own! Actually, the chairman’s foreword reads more like the |
gushings of an
awestruck Hollywood actress at an awards ceremony.
Interestingly, the
term “stakeholders”
does not include anyone like the residents - only
those who support the rush for new-build. The rest
of the
report
reads like something an august journal refers to as
“Birtspeak”.
Amongst all the achievements (how was the industry ever permitted to get into such a mess in the first place?) of removing radioactive material (where did it all end up?) is one which says: “We have therefore reprioritised funds from lower hazard projects to address our higher priority objectives, and have continued to review plans for decommissioning sites in line with our top priorities.” (Ref.: NDA Annual Report, P11) Surely this doesn’t mean that they were so busy distributing their largesse that they ran out of money to do the basics? Or does it? “In addition to the direct funding associated with socio-economic activity, we have contributedsignificantly to the wider socio-economic aims of our priority areas. In particular, the Sellafield competition has delivered a PBO committed to introducing their own funds to the West Cumbria community.” (Ref.: NDA Annual Report, P13.) Some people might refer to this strategy more directly: as bribery. As everything is hunky-dory according to the report, it might be churlish to mention things like Sizewell, where 40,000 gallons of radioactive contaminated water has leaked - discovered not by the operators but by outside consultants. Or statements culled from a variety of reports, such as the one about Magnox staff, noting that they had “made significant mistakes which call into question their suitability to carry out their roles”; that the nuclear safety control arrangements and its implementation were “inadequate”; that a vital alarm system in the pond area “had never beencommissioned”; and that there was “an issue regarding the suitability of people to control operations on site”. (None of these concerns were expressed to SSG members at the time and, particularly, even though the Magnox had seriously breached several of its nuclear safety site licence conditions, the NII opted not to prosecute, one reason for this being that it would require a lot of extra work at a time when its own “resources are stretched”.) For some strange reason, not much detail is given of the prosecutions of the various sites in the NDA’s “estate” (their term - presumably encompassing all sites), for breaches of Health and Safety legislation. Noteworthy is the prohibition notice served on Sellafield by the Department of Transport. This relates to an inadequate container for plutonium dioxide (powder) The first of several loads was shipped to Cherbourg. Later, the French authorities discovered there had been a breach of the transport regulations in respect of the transport. The failure related to the thermal rating limit of the plutonium transport containers used. The information was passed to the Department for Transport who then issued the Prohibition Notice. The prohibition is still extant. Shouldn’t make too much of it, especially in an annual report. The report notes that the number of International Nuclear Even Scale events increased to 15. We could go on and on citing the various failures of the nuclear industry. It does have the potential to provide energy needs in the future - but only when it has cleaned up its act and ceases to pollute on an international scale. When its waste can be dealt with efficiently and not just stuffed down a hole and forgotten about. (We recently read about the barrels of high-level waste that had been misplaced for several decades, and regularly read - in connection with areas of Sellafield - that no-one has any idea what is in there, because the material was dumped so long ago and there is no paper trail. How much will go wrong and be forgotten before a system has emerged to deal with the buried treasure? The only method for monitoring the condition of such material will be measuring how much has leaked! Isn’t it a bit late by then? At present it is not sustainable nor clean. Sadly, the industry has seized an opportunity to panic the politicians into believing it is both. Given an investment of several billion pounds by the industry (with the hope of high yeilds!), the promise of thousands of jobs and freedom from Russian and Middle Eastern fuel supplies, and the politicians (whose integrity has been highlighted over the last few months with claims for 50 pence bathplugs and remembrance wreaths, etc.,) are suitably blinded. It might appear to some that they would have no problem starting a car with no brakes, either. |
|
The Redfern Enquiry, et al.
Anyone remember the Redfern Enquiry? Set up by Alistair Darling, MP, back in April, 2007 it was a combined investigation into the Alder Hey Children's Hospital Pathology Dept., and their retention of organs without the knowledge or consent of the relatives, and the similar practice being carried out on behalf of BNFL to investigate the effects of the nuclear industry on the population. The enquiry team set up a website, http://www.theredferninquiry.co.uk , complete with RSS feeds so that anyone interested can have up-dated infomation as soon as it is supplied on the website. The terms of reference were amended by the new incumbent, John Hutton, MP, in late February, 2008. That is the last information available on the website. Pretty poor for a site that is supposed to be working on behalf of relatives and members of the public. It appears that nothing has been done by the enquiry for over 18 months. That is probably incorrect, but why has the website not been up-dated to keep people informed? We mention elsewhere the incident whereby two employees at Sellafield were exposed to radiation, resulting in the company being prosecuted under Health and Safety legislation. The appearance at Carlisle Court was then postponed. Strange? Also elsewhere, we have noted the excessive discharges of antimony - some 400% of the permitted levels. The HSE's response seems to be to increase the permitted levels. Strange? |
| Newspaper Cuttings | |
| From the Sunday Times,
16/8/09 Energy firms in secret talks on nuclear ‘levy’ Danny Fortson Taxpayers may be forced to subsidise Britain’s nuclear renaissance through a levy tacked on to household fuel bills under plans being developed by the energy industry. Utility executives have told ministers that their pledge not to use public aid to fund the the £40 billion rollout of new nuclear power stations is no longer realistic. The levy is one of several proposals tabled. Talks about how to structure an aid mechanism are at an early stage, but there is a consensus in the industry that without help the new power plants will not be built. Seeking help from the public would be embarrassing for the government, which had made a virtue of the fact that this key part of its power strategy would be funded by the private sector. An energy department spokesman reiterated that position this weekend, saying: “It is for energy companies to fund, build and develop these, not the taxpayer.” Industry sources said, however, that talks had begun on how to devise “a subsidy by another name” that would allow the government to stand by its promise of no direct taxpayer support. At about £4 billion each, nuclear reactors cost up to four times more than a gas-fired plant. In theory, the difference would be recouped because of the need for fossil-fuel generators to buy carbon emission permits. Nuclear power is virtually emission free. Nuclear operators need a carbon price of €30 to €40 a ton to be competitive. Today it is €14.35. The price is expected to rise from 2013, when the market will switch to 100% auctioning of the permits. Today most are given away free. Industry executives say, however, that a predicted rise in carbon prices is not enough for them to make the necessary investment decisions. A nuclear levy that varies according to the carbon price could be a solution. EDF, which plans four reactors in the UK, said the government should set a minimum price for carbon permits, supported by a pool of funds provided by high-polluting fossil fuel generators. Meanwhile, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell was reported last night to be behind a A$3 billion (£1.5 billion) takeover approach for Australian gas producer Arrow Energy. Shell declined to comment. |
From The Sunday Times
August 16, 2009 EDF attracts big hitters in auction of £4bn UK electricity network Danny Fortson An international cast of billionaires, pension funds and utility groups is lining up to bid for the biggest electricity distribution network in Britain, worth more than £4 billion. The French nuclear giant EDF recently appointed Deutsche Bank and Barclays to prepare for auction its UK network arm, which supplies nearly 8m homes in east and southeast England. The proposed sale is part of the French group’s effort to reduce a €24.5 billion (£21.2 billion) debt pile built up after buying British Energy, Britain’s nuclear monopoly. EDF is not expected to start the auction until the middle of next month, once executives in France have returned from summer holidays, but in recent weeks, potential bidders have stepped up talks to form consortia. They include Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), the Middle East sovereign wealth fund; Cheung Kong Infrastructure, the group owned by Li Ka-shing, Asia’s richest man; and three Canadian pension funds: Borealis, Ontario Teachers, and Canadian Pension Plan. Utility company Scottish & Southern, network monopoly National Grid, investment group GIP and Morgan Stanley Infrastructure are also holding talks. None of the potential suitors has yet agreed to team up. “Everyone is talking to everyone but nobody has got together yet,” said a banking source, adding: “It would be very difficult for anyone to do this alone.” The deal would require cash financing of up to £1.4 billion. Barclays is standing by to provide the debt. The business, comprised of three regional networks in London, the east and southeast, is likely to be sold as a whole. The sale has caused ructions within EDF. Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive in the UK, is said to oppose the move as the business is highly profitable. |
|
Lessons
Need to Be Learned - The Residents of Copeland Cannot Trust the
Politicians, Councillors, the NDA or Sellafield
From the Whitehaven News, 19th August, 2009: Nuclear waste sites
set for thumbs
down
by Alan Irving |
|
| TWO local sites
earmarked for
radioactive waste disposal are set to get the thumbs down from Cumbria
County Council even though one – at Lillyhall – has
already
taken small amounts. Cabinet councillors next week are expected to approve a recommendation that the low level radioactive waste is kept at Sellafield rather than sent to Keekle Head or Lillyhall. But it emerged yesterday that the Lillyhall site already has low level waste buried under it and will not need planning permission to dispose of any more. Tim Knowles, county council cabinet member for the environment, told The Whitehaven News: “The difference is that they are talking about a massive increase in volume. “This is wrong, it is not in the interests of the community. We would hope that at the end of the day the NDA does not allow proliferation in this way.” Waste Recyling Group and Energy Solutions have applied to the Environment Agency for a new authorisation, and if this is granted could be taking very low levels by the end of the year. WRG’s external affairs general manager Mike Snell said: “Our belief is that under the Radioactive Substances Act we don’t need planning permission to go ahead.” But yesterday Coun Knowles said: “Sellafield waste should be dealt with at Sellafield. What we don’t want is a proliferation of radioactive waste, it should not be put in holes around West Cumbria and imposed on people.” At Keekle Head, French company subsidiary Endecom is already drilling boreholes to see whether it will be suitable. It also has an agreement to buy the derelict 173-acre site. |
The firm recently
presented its
plans to local councillors and environmental experts and will need
planning permission as a former opencast coal site. Public
presentations are also being arranged for Distington and Moresby
pending a full planning application. Waste Recycling Group and Energy Solutions have the support of Distington parish council for the Lillyhall landfill to be used. Since 1972 the site has been taking non-hazardous household and commercial waste as well as the small amounts of slightly radioactive material in the past.Main sources of the waste would be Sellafield Ltd, Chapelcross and LLWR at Drigg, the country’s only designated disposal site for low level radioactive waste. But in order to free up more space at Drigg and allow the site to operate for another 60 years, the government is looking for alternative disposal routes such as landfill. These would take very low levels of radioactive waste. Consultations on the national strategy to manage future arisings of waste will close on September 11. Cabinet members will consider a county council response on the lines that “LLW produced at Sellafield should be disposed of near to Sellafield and should not be dispersed in sites further afield in West Cumbria.” Although the county council wants to see a reduction in the volume of waste for final disposal, it says, “There should be a more proactive approach from the NDA to manage the material on site at nuclear installations.” The NDA has pledged £1.5million a year towards Copeland community benefits for every year the Drigg site continues to operate, with a £10 million kick start. WRG and Energy Solutions are now planning a “drop in” for people to learn more about the plans in Distington community centre on September 18 (8pm). |
| So
the true nature
of the nuclear-waste mob are being revealed. It will be
interesting to see how they react when the heavy mob lean on them,
drawing attention to the fact that perhaps now is not the best time to
be demonstrating to residents that, despite promises from the
pro-nuclear brigade, they will have absolutely no control at all - even
after this batch of manipulators have been voted out of office. We are somewhat amused to watch the video on on the Whitehaven News 19~8~09 website. How many of the beautiful features they list as their Favourite Things will cease to exist or be worth visiting once their plans have been foisted on the residents? Would you want to visit an area which has 240' high reactors to blemish the coastline? What about the plans for the windfarms and the distribution network? Will you be paying good money to come and see them, too? It would appear that the only areas of interest to Cumbria Tourism are the already-over visited centres around Windermere, etc. “DECC
has already made the decision.”
Nuclear Free Local Authorities Back
in January, 2007, Mr. Justice
Sullivan said information
given on waste had been "not merely inadequate but also
misleading". Yet
we
have not been
given any indication of the nature of potential waste, nor of the
manner in
which it will be securely and safely held or how, when, or where it
will be
reprocessed. Shortly after giving us a copy of the appraisal, they asked us to keep quiet about it, as DECC didn't want material to emerge piecemeal. Of course, a cynic might say that by releasing a tonne of material simultaneously they stand a very good chance that people will be overwhelmed and might miss some salient points. Surely not? The government released a GREEN PAPER, entitled "A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy"; a very strange document. Despite mentioning Germany and France (and a few others) as partners with whom the UK should be involved, when it comes to energy security, surely the history of relations with these countries needs to be considered? Are we wrong in thinking that we have been to war - comparatively recently with some of them? When an energy pinch begins to hurts, surely there is at least a risk that friction might recur? Or that the companies running our vital supplies could withdraw their co-operation? Not sure where the uranium might come from in an internal supply market. What about us having to supply a European grid, too? Aren't there some drawbacks with that? The phrase mentioned elsewhere in relation to Poland being looted for gold ore comes to mind. "They will take the gold and leave the aresenic." In this case, we could end up having to supply a considerable portion of Europe, enduring the hazards and wastes of the nuclear industry, whilst others, like Germany, will abandon the technology comptetely as being too dangerous and dirty. |
|
Paranoia sets in We have been somewhat puzzled by the consistent bias shown on the BBC television programmes that have had anything to do with either Cumbria's Energy Coast specifically or just the nuclear industry in general. Whatever the local opinion, the items have always shown a preponderence of opinion in favour of the nuclear industry's proposed development. This runs contrary to our perception. Sometimes the bias has been so acute that we have just had to make a formal complaint to the programme maker. Despite our protests of bias and incomplete factual evidence being presented, nothing has changed. A banal report on the One Show on BBC 1 television was so bad that we didn't even bother to complain. The feeling was that the BBC, like the Whitehaven News has lost its impartiality. In the case of the latter journal, the pro-nuclear stance can be explained by the NDA's largesse buying good will. The publication of the NDA's mouthpiece, the highly biased Futures section will surely help in these difficult times for newspapers. However, we were at a loss to understand the BBC's perceived bias, and began to suspect that we were losing sight of the truth. Until we read the following in the Sunday Times for 23rd August, 2009, where A.A. Gill wrote: "Future of Food was surprisingly, coincidentally, a programme about food security presented by George Alagiah that just happened to come out within a few days of the minister for farming and the environment, Hilary Benn, making a government statement on precisely the same subject. And lo, here he was interviewed by George. It must have been happenstance, because I can't believe the BBC would be so stupid, partisan or gullible as to use a national broadcast to in any way support or increase awareness of a partisan political policy." There are £billions at stake for the nuclear industry and the people responsible for the short-sighted energy policy could be looking for jobs shortly, could this spur have had a similar effect . . . Surely not? How else to explain the obvious bias in these articles and the complete failure to ask probing questions to reveal the flaws in the proposed energy plans? What possible hold could the government have over the national broadcaster whose main claim is to impartiality and an over-riding duty of truth and integrity? Surely not knighthoods and licence fees? The following page is comprised of jottings - some statements taken as part of our research. Eventually they will be included more fully and integrated into the relevant pages. Most are culled from various documents available on-line, appropriately highlighted in red, and comments in blue. When time permits we will also be including a table of links to the various other groups fighting this industry and its consequences for health - human and animal, finances, and the environment. We acknowledge the help and advice given by a variety of organisations with gratitude. Click here to view jottings. |
||||||