|
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.
Its 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.
|
|