The custodians of the Lake District appear to wish to stay neutral over the plans for an underground nuclear dump for highly radioactive waste in the Western Lake District.
Central government, Cumbria and Copeland Councils have all endorsed the moves to have highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel buried in caverns. Their plans are also linked to the plan to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, possibly including one in Cumbria.
A report to the government's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in 2008 confidently states: "A wide range of generic repository Concepts is available that can provide safe and secure geological disposal options to suit any appropriate UK geological environment."
The most likely sites are those with "stable crystalline bedrock" such as the Eskdale granites underlying parts of Eskdale and Wasdale (pictured.....both locations are within sight of Sellafield)
The one organisation charged to protect our Lake District, the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA), has signed up to become a partner in what has been branded and marketed as 'The Vision' for both new nuclear reactors and an underground dump.
But to quote from LDNPA's latest strategy document: "It is not appropriate to either support or object to the location of such a site in West Cumbria at this early stage. More information is needed to make an informed decision. The best way to get this is to be involved in the selection procedure." (Link to May 2008 Strategy report/due for update in September09).
To quote from the LKDNPA minerals and waste strategy: "The likelihood of West Cumbria being put forward as a potential volunteer community is very high. We cannot underestimate the importance of us being involved in the decision making process. "
This comes as the Park bids for World Heritage status in 2011.

The previous bid for a nuclear underground dump by Nirex in the 1980s was only for intermediate level nuclear waste and even that was ruled out by the then Tory government after a lengthy public inquiry.
The nuclear industry has retained ownership of the land earmarked by Nirex for the dump and a farmhouse on the site has blocked up windows to mask its redundancy awaiting developments….(Pictured right)

Sellafield does look after the current massive collection of 'legacy' nuclear waste, some remaining radioactive for over 27,000 years.

Lakestay says that allowing the government to claim spent nuclear fuel from new reactors can be dumped underground in Cumbria forever not only gives a false 'green light' for new reactors, but it may also not be the best option for Britain.
Lakestay says radioactive waste should be supervised above ground (thus ensuring future jobs and expertise continues) rather than the planned bury and walk away plan.
Supervising waste above ground will allow future technological breakthroughs which may enable dangerous isotopes to be changed and make the waste safe.

Imagine the scale of the waste excavations to take both legacy waste and all spent nuclear fuel from a new commercial scale reactors.
The tourist industry and its health benefits to the UK population may well outweigh the economic benefits to Cumbria of Sellafield…a choice is being made now while the LDNPA says "It is not appropriate to either support or object to the location of such a site in West Cumbria."

Meanwhile massive 'donations' are being made and promised for being home to the underground dump. All the payments coming directly or indirectly from you the taxpayer. Find out more at ....
www.nuclearspin.org

Well done to the National Trust for describing the goverment's National Policy (NPS) as "unfit for purpose".

The Trust states: "With regard to waste disposal, we are concerned that this issue has not been dealt with sufficiently within the NPS and that the IPC is not required to consider the issue of waste disposal in its consideration of applications. As no long-term storage disposal solution for nuclear waste has yet been identified, this means that all nuclear waste from new generating facilities will have to be stored on-site for a significant time-period. This has the potential to increase the risk of each site to the environment, local populations and visitors and the level and nature of this risk should be calculated and communicated to all local stakeholders during the consultation process."

And what of the Cumbria Tourist Board? Will they also try and stay neutral?
We asked (July 2009) for their views on a future underground nuclear dump and/or new nuclear power stations. Below is the response from their Public Relations Manager, Julie Darroch.

"The tourism and nuclear industries in Cumbria have co-existed for many years and a number of tourism businesses, such as Muncaster Castle and the Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway, are successfully operating within close proximity of Cumbria's current nuclear site at Sellafield.

"Over the last three years, visitors to the Copeland area have grown at a faster rate than any other part of the county - attracting an additional 7% of visitors, which in turn resulted in an increase in the number of tourism jobs in the area.

"Any investment planned for Cumbria's West Coast should be welcomed, especially in the current economic climate. Investment has the potential to deliver a prosperous local economy, which will in turn make the area more attractive to both visitors and locals as we will see improvements to the public realm (the overall appearance of the place) and development in new facilities; from accommodation to cultural attractions and facilities.

"Cumbria Tourism does not have the technical authority to comment on any specific points raised that relate to the day-to-day operation of the Sellafield site, but any issues that may effect visitors or tourism businesses are immediately brought to our attention by our major partner, the County Council who are represented on Cumbria Tourism's Executive Board.

"As is the case with any major development, we will closely monitor the impact of potential nuclear new builds on both visitor enjoyment and our tourism businesses and, along with the public, will have an opportunity to put our (and our membership's) views forward as part of the Government's consultation process."

REACTION of Cumbrian Artist, Julian Heaton Cooper.
"I agree there is a great risk of the English Lake District being 'volunteered' for a future underground nuclear dump and organisations such as the National Park Authority need to take a far more robust attitude than appears to have been the case so far. It is no use custodians of the Lake District staying neutral over the possibility of highly radioactive waste, that is active for 27,000 years, being buried beneath the Western Lakeland. Lakestay are quite right to highlight these concerns."

REACTION of Lord Judd in House of Lords Feb2010/: My Lords, at the outset, I declare an interest on three grounds. First, I am vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks. Secondly, I am president of Friends of the Lake District, which represents CPRE in Cumbria. Thirdly, I am a resident of the national park in Cumbria. None of these are remunerated-not even with expenses-but all of them are very real commitments on my part.
I could not agree more with the Government on the urgency of low carbon forms of energy and the benefit of having national planning strategies. I am very glad that in the document before us there are indeed references to national parks, the broads and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In other words, I support the Government's low-carbon transition plan. I am confident that my noble friend will agree that while, therefore, minimising carbon emissions is an essential priority, of equal priority is enhancing people's quality of life, protecting biodiversity and aqua-system resilience, landscape beauty, diversity and our sense of identity, and conserving our precious and declining natural resources.
My noble friend is a particularly civilised and sensitive man. I read with great joy his diary of a visit to Cumbria-probably in the House Magazine. My heart leapt with joy when he referred to how, as the train crossed the mountains of Cumbria, he was full of the glories and richness of life. I know that he feels these things as I do. I have put it to him in private conversation-I am sure that he will not mind my mentioning this-that he really has a huge challenge, which has two objectives. One is, of course, to make sure that the nation's energy needs are met, but the other is to leave an inheritance of which we can all be proud. He would never be happy if he went down in history as a man who met the energy needs but wrecked the environment; I am sure that he will not prove to be that.
The language of the document before us slightly concerns me. It seems to be a pretty good model of a values-free government publication. I do not think that I am being harsh, but its language is a sort of cold management-speak. Imagination and vision are not the hallmarks of this document. I therefore put it to my noble friend that while the energy priorities are beyond doubt, the other aspects to which I have been referring need to be more strongly worded. A tone needs to be set that these are not things which we shall have to accommodate, but to which we are deeply committed. I am also a little concerned lest the emphasis in this NPS on energy will work against the principle of increasing public engagement with and understanding of major decisions, and the enhancement of the whole nature of citizenship in a way that enables people to feel that they can play a meaningful and real part in developing the solutions we all need to find as a society.
Our nationally and internationally important landscapes are very special places for the nation and essential to the public interest. The new draft circular for the English national parks and the broads demonstrates well their holistic worth to society, be it for health, exercise or seeing the local demonstration of sustainable lifestyle choices. Yet the western fringes of the Lake District National Park face potential destruction from a series of separate "nationally significant infrastructure facilities" that the NPS says can, in themselves, override the protection afforded to national parks in PPS7
The potential is for three nuclear build sites-only one closely related to Sellafield-with all the associated infrastructure, such as roads, a major upgraded National Grid transmission system, with conspicuous overhead lines all over the place, tidal energy bridges across Morecambe Bay and the Solway Firth, together with a plethora of existing and proposed off and onshore major and large-scale wind farms. That is not to mention nuclear waste being stored above ground for 160 years, with all its attendant management problems of safety and security, to which the right reverend Prelate referred rather tellingly. For a start, I should put on the record my view that overhead lines in national parks and areas of outstanding beauty should be a no-go issue.
Cumbria, indeed, can meet its own domestic needs for 500,000 households and contribute toward meeting regional planning targets, but just how much energy does it have to provide for the nation in the context of protecting those exceptional landscapes, including the Lake District jewel and its generally high environmental quality? The overarching NPS, and accompanying technology-specific NPSs, cannot reflect the totality of the cumulative impact from that potential development. This must be done in the local context, but as set out in the draft statement, that local impact appears to be almost automatically out-trumped by the national energy need. In weighing need and impact, the decision-making of the IPC, and of local authorities through their local impact reports, must be able to assess the principle of major individual projects that affect national parks, together with the deployment of alternative options or sites in the context of other potential proposals.
The draft NPS is based on the premise that there is a considerable need for new investment over the coming years and that any new provision is therefore needed. As part of this approach, the market is left to decide where proposals for new electricity generating infrastructure will come forward. For example, the proposed list of sites for nuclear power stations in EN-6 has been identified by promoters on the basis of market considerations, rather than through a rigorous site selection process based on sustainability criteria. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully representations by CPRE, CNP and other agencies that play such a vital part as guardians of the quality of British life, and which I find compelling. Those agencies are surely right to argue that the Government should not prescribe what development will be provided when the absence of any priorities or steer for where infrastructure might be most desirable, acceptable and necessary is unhelpful.
This is unlikely to result in the more strategic approach to which the Government aspire. Instead, objectors will continue to resist developments on a case-by-case basis. The need case will not be accepted by the public. Draft EN-1 appears to say that whatever promoters say is necessary is necessary, regardless of the impacts that that might generate. The NPSs effectively promote

23 Feb 2010 : Column GC263

the unconstrained development of energy schemes anywhere on the basis that their need is established and unquestionable. This creates an over-riding and, in my view, dubious presumption in favour of any such development. What is more, reliance on a market-led approach is flawed because it does not properly take into account how the presumed need can be achieved through alternative means, such as energy conservation measures or through demand management. Only EN-6, which deals with nuclear matters, contains any form of spatial referencing. While it may not be necessary for detailed proposals to be included in every NPS, it would be valuable to have greater spatial guidance and clear identification of priority areas for new energy infrastructure indicating, for example, sensitive areas to be protected. This would assess the IPC's decision-making and increase certainty.
In paragraph 4.1.2 and elsewhere, weight is attached to development plans and regional guidance. The draft NPSs do not individually or collectively give sufficient weight to the relevance of the development plan, the regional spatial strategy and the local development framework to the IPC. This is particularly important for Wales and specific guidance on energy, including TAN8, and the renewable energy route map, as well as the Wales spatial plan and Panning Policy Wales. Much more clarity is required on whether the national policy statements relate solely to nationally significant proposals and to what extent they are a material planning consideration for proposals under that threshold.
There is an interesting reference to heritage assets in paragraph 4.23.14. I wonder why similar guidance principles are not included in this section on landscape and visual impact.

In paragraphs 4.24.6 and 4.24.8, reference is made to assessing nationally significant infrastructure projects in national parks, the broads and AONBs. The guidance in the draft NPS for assessing projects in these unique places really needs to be redrafted so that it properly reflects the rigorous examination required for such projects and the tests that must be satisfied before such projects can be considered acceptable. Exceptional circumstances and public interest must both be demonstrated.
The guidance in paragraph 4.24.7 appears to be completely at odds with current government policy for assessing major development proposals within national parks, as set out in paragraph 22 of planning policy statement 7. The draft NPS attempts to define exceptional circumstances as those where development can be demonstrated to be in the public interests. This is in contrast to existing government policy, which is that both exceptional circumstances and public interest must be demonstrated-and the two are after all not always necessarily equivalent-for a major development proposal to be considered acceptable. Footnote 68 also changes existing government policy, as it attempts to redefine national considerations as including the contribution of the infrastructure to the regional economy. Nor is there any reference to the requirement for such proposals to be subject to the most rigorous examination. When taken together, the changes constitute a significant onslaught on a key government policy, the principles of which have remained unsullied throughout the lifetime of several successive Governments.
The reference to the regional economy in footnote 68 could be deleted. National parks are designated for the nation's benefit and because of their national significance. The suggestion that a contribution to a regional economy is necessarily a national consideration is highly questionable. I urge my noble friend to ensure that this is given careful thought. By contrast, the NPS contains a welcome recognition that for developments outside nationally designated landscapes, the potential impact on the landscape should be taken into account by the IPC and the aim should be to avoid compromising the objectives of designation.
Paragraph 4.4 refers to alternatives. The principle in effect that alternatives to proposals should in some circumstances not be considered smacks to me of the characteristics of a control economy, with all its pitfalls and dangers. The need to make a rigorous assessment of alternatives seems to me to be a fundamental principle that underpins the promotion of sustainable development and the strategic environmental assessment process. Given that it is the role of the applicant to undertake a thorough assessment of all alternatives, it is difficult to accept the proposition in the final bullet of paragraph 4.4.3 that third parties should be responsible for assessing any alternatives that they put forward. This is, frankly, likely to be unrealistic for members of the public or smaller voluntary groups.
I conclude with a reference to paragraph 4.9 and the grid connections. I see that the paragraph requires any application to the IPC to include information on how the generating station is to be connected to the grid and whether any particular environmental issues are likely to arise from that connection. This is good. However, does my noble friend not agree that it is essential that proposals for generating stations and associated proposals for grid connection should be submitted to the IPC as a single application? If that is not possible, surely separate applications must be submitted in tandem to the IPC so that their environmental impacts can be considered at the same time, and any combination of effects assessed.
This is not the first occasion on which I have drawn the attention of the House to what happened in the 19th century industrial revolution. At the Proms and elsewhere we sing with passion of the "dark satanic mills" but with hindsight it need not have happened; it could have been done in a much more civilised way. Have we learnt or, through high technology and all its paraphernalia and infrastructure, are we about to make the same mistake again? Pray God not. To ensure that the priority of meeting energy needs is not allowed, in any way, to impair or rape our rich, rural country inheritance, I cannot think of a better champion than my noble friend. I urge him to accept the challenge.

Another Nuclear Dumping Plan for Cumbria

It is not just high and intermediate level nuclear waste the industry needs to try and dispose of. By re branding some types of low level nuclear waste as VERY LOW level waste, the industry hopes to get it buried in the domestic and trade landfill dump at Lillyhall. Thus ironically the more householders take the time to recycle their domestic waste the more space they free up for burial of radioactive contaminated waste.
Mike Travis of EnergySolutions, was quoted in Feb 2010 stating:“The Environment Agency is broadly happy with it, the county council says we do not need planning permission.”
This is because in the past Lillyhall has already received similar types of material.
“It’s all quite legitimate,” said Mike Travis, “because under existing legislation there are 3,000 tones of what we call NORM waste there – naturally occurring radioactive material.
“The legislation changed in 2007 with the re-issuing of government policy on radioactive waste management so to comply we have to apply for an environmental safety case and receive an authorisation.”