EU Candidates say YES to overturning the European Commission’s Nuclear Agenda

Nuclear in Europe
Nuclear in Europe

 

The nuclear agenda in the UK is being driven by the European Commission so Radiation Free Lakeland has written to EU candidates, here are the questions and the replies we have received back, interestingly none back from the Conservatives, Liberals or UKIP.

As a candidate for the EU elections we would be very grateful if you could
answer these 3 questions….

Q1 Will you work to ensure that the Geological Disposal Directive 2011/70 is overturned and that safety is put before finance and expediency?

Jill Perry NW Green Party Euro-Candidate: 

Yes we will work to overturn it. Green Party policy on radioactive waste is as

follows

EN604 The long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste should be in

surface or  near-surface facilities. Facilities should be located as near to the

site where the waste is produced as possible. Developers will need to demonstrate

how the facilities will be monitored and how waste  packages, or waste, could be

retrieved. All long-term waste management options will be subject to robust

regulatory requirements.

 

Stephen Morris English Democrats NW  Euro Candidate

Yes

 

Helen Bashford – An Independence from Europe NW Euro Candidate

I will do everything in my power to help you stop this nuclear dumping

problem because of the reasons you have stated

 

Dr. Maria Aretoulaki – Pirate Party/Manchester NW Euro Candidate

One of our core principles is to put citizens’ rights over and above corporate and

lobby interests. So it follows naturally that we would veto any plan, let alone

decision, that generates any risk to public health and the environment, whether or

not it is associated with any other benefits (financial gain or expediency). We are

committed to collecting and analysing all the available data (e.g. from the only

existing geological disposal facility in New Mexico that you mentioned) in order to

decide on what the best, and not just the least bad, strategy or option is. It is

fortunate that EU member states are expected to produce a comprehensive waste

management plan by 2015, as this means that we can still be involved and influence

the consultation and the drafting of the plan.

 

 

Q2 Would you agree that Decommissioning should not mean dispersal of radioactive wastes to the environment and will you explore the possibility of a moratorium on the practice of Decommissioning?

 

Jill Perry NW Green Party Euro Candidate

Yes we oppose the recycling of radioactive waste and the policy of classifying

some wastes as exempt. The idea of a moratorium on decommissioning is new to me, but

I believe that it should be possible to do it better. Therefore I am not in

principle opposed to a moratorium and would consider it.

 

Stephen Morris English Democrats NW Euro Candidate

Yes

 

Helen Bashford   An Independence from Europe NW Euro Candidate

I agree with your sentiments on this aspect too , decommissioning

seems to be a box the government think they have just conveniently ticked

 

Dr. Maria Aretoulaki – Pirate Party/Manchester NW Euro Candidate

I too suspect that geological nuclear waste disposal facilities is only a short-term

solution which doesn’t take future (climatic / geological) developments or unknowns

into consideration. I suspect that such solutions are dangerous to both the

environment and public health (e.g. after unpredictable or even unregistered seismic

activity, or through the insidious permeation and contamination of water and land).

We are very much aware that nuclear waste is here and cannot just be wished away, so

a solution is both urgent and indispensable. We are, however, also very much aware

of and can very much sympathise with the concerns of the local people in Cumbria who

have to constantly live with the consequences of bad Government and private company

decisions of the past. So I fully agree that decommissioning should never mean

“dispersal” of radioactive waste to the environment! A moratorium on the practice of

decommissioning is much more challenging, however, as it doesn’t come with a solut

ion as to where the nuclear waste should go once a nuclear power station is closed

down (and we assume we will need to do that occasionally). We are of course prepared

and more than willing to explore all available / known options to identify the

safest and most long-term one, whatever the cost. Waste minimisation options would

be preferred, and of course minimising our dependence on nuclear energy and

depending as much as possible on renewable energies would be ideal in our view.

 

Q3 Given that in the real world there are no “waste eating” nuclear reactors (only industry PR pie in the sky Integral Fast Reactors ) and no “away” for nuclear waste (apart from dispersal to the environment) will you oppose Moorside?

 

Jill Perry NW Green Party Euro Candidate

Yes it is Green Party Policy to oppose the building of new nuclear power stations

including Moorside, and it is mentioned in the mini-manifesto.

 

Stephen Morris  English Democrats Euro Candidate

Yes

 

Helen Bashord An Independence from Europe NW Euro Candidate

Yes I would oppose Moorside if only because as you say there is not enough research & the companies

the goverment seem to be talking to have big

question marks over them.

Hope this helps & if I get elected I will try to do as much as I possibly can.

 

Dr. Maria Aretoulaki – Pirate Party/Manchester NW Euro Candidate

As I’ve already mentioned above, we are not satisfied with the current – seemingly

only – option of geological waste disposal. At the same time, temporary storage only

procrastinates and postpones the problem to the next decade or more. I was

personally very interested to hear of the -as you say potentially still pie in the

sky- Integral Fast Reactors solution, which if it ever works would be the perfect

golden medium (less waste, less environmental impact, shorter waste life, energy

efficiency and volume); but until then geological disposal and interim storage seem

to be the only option that we have. Regarding the site, I suspect the location is a

bad idea given the proximity to Sellafield as you point out. So even though I can

understand the need for such a site, in the absence of any other solution, I

understand even better your concern about the safety of the local people and the

potential impact on the environment, and the urgent need to give them priority over

the criteria of expediency that you rightly mentioned. So I fully support a reexamination at the

very least of the decision to use the Moorside site for this huge (and sinister)

“experiment”.    I wish I had more concrete counter suggestions to propose to you, something that I

hope anyone can achieve once they get access to all the relevant documents,

consultations and expert evaluations.

 

The Questions in full 

 

One thought on “EU Candidates say YES to overturning the European Commission’s Nuclear Agenda

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s