The 2nd Moorside Consultation for the “biggest nuclear development in Europe” finishes on 30th July.
‘Too Big and Too Nasty to Fight‘ is the View of the Proposed Moorside Plan from so many good people like the Director of Cumbria Wildlife Trust who feel utterly defeated by the nuclear juggernaught coming our way. This is of course what the industry wants you to think. BUT WE CAN DEFEAT THEM, ALL IT TAKES IS YOU. Thousands of people have already joined the Resistance
We advise that as many people as possible write, phone, email to tell NuGen in your own words that : “I do not recognise this Consultation as valid….”
Email: email@example.com or go through their CONsultation page. Our letter is below for ideas. Even one or two lines on a Lakeland postcard to FREEPOST – MOORSIDE HAVE YOUR SAY Just say a strong NO NO NO. If you have time send copies of your letter to your MP, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, National Trust, National Farmers Union, Anglers Societies, Ramblers, Sustrans, WIs and as many groups as you can think of. This would impact all of them and more!
RADIATION FREE LAKELAND
2nd NuGen Consultation
“Help Us Shape Our Plans” towards the building of Moorside.
Radiation Free Lakeland does not recognise the first or second NuGen Consultation as being valid. This Consultation rests upon the shoulders of previously unjust and predetermined consultations. These have led to the UKs National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power and the ditching of any scrutiny through a public inquiry by making nuclear power a Nationally Significant Infrastructure project.
The May 2007 Energy White Paper stated that ‘Nuclear power supplies 7.5% of total UK energy supplies.‘ When the reality is 3.6% energy contribution. The White paper talks of “home grown” ‘Security of supply” again this is a nonsense with the uranium for Moorside planned to come from Kazakhstan where Toshiba (60% of NuGen) own uranium interests. The “nuclear supplies 7.5% of total UK energy supplies” lie was repeated and published in double page adverts by NuGen during the first Consultation.
A consultation that seeks to spike dissent and narrow the game down to “helping us shape our plans” is not valid. When the most informed and well-educated members of a community feel that the consultation holds “no option to stop this happening” then we can be sure that at least tens of thousands of people have been well and truly spiked. Cumbria Wildlife Trust have almost 15,000 members. Those thousands of spiked people are the very people who would be most concerned to protect Moorside’s Site of Special Scientific Interest, the River Ehen, three County Wildlife sites, Shingle beach, A large section of the St Bees to Ravenglass marine Conservation Zone, Trees, Woodland and at least 2km of ancient hedgerow. This makes NuGen’s CONsultation a sham. To reinforce this message and add a shade of green, NuGen have “teamed up” with Cumbria Wildlife Trust at Gillerthwaite Mire, Ennerdale. We note with alarm that this is exactly the same area that has previously been eyed up for geological dumping of heat generating waste. NuGen’s Environmental Sustainability Manager, Alexandra Brennan, said: “NuGen is committed to protecting the environment close to our Moorside Project, which is home to some very special, important and increasingly rare habitats – the peatland at Gillerthwaite Mire is a really good example and that’s why we jumped at the opportunity to volunteer our time and help with this work.” We wonder how much money has already changed hands and how many “replacement habitats” are promised to CWT? Tens of £thousands have been paid to CWT from SITA, whose parent company is ENGIE (40% NuGen).
Displace and ReplaceIn Ennerdale, farmers are strictly regulated as to how they can use the river Ehen and rightly so. However, this regulation is meaningless. When the river reaches its lower reaches alongside the Irish Sea it is now being used as a dumping ground for NuGen’s 300 “exploratory” borehole wastes. The West Cumbria Rivers Trust who are coordinating the £300m plan here in Cumbria to save the freshwater mussel have told us that “we are not a lobbying organisation, and in addition, we do not have any funds available ..We are aware of the Moorside development and their plans, and being such a large scale project in this area, we have been responding where we can, with our very limited resources, as a stakeholder to the various environmental assessments and shaping of the scope of the assessments as the development progresses. We feel our knowledge and resources are best placed within ensuring the development proposal as it progresses, has the best possible strategies for reducing runoff and not impeding migratory fish rather than a blanket campaign against the development in general.” So, armed with the advice from complicit conservation groups what do NuGen say they are going to do about the “receptor” freshwater pearl mussels? “it would be necessary to mitigate any detrimental effects by relocating individual mussels.” NuGen also say they will “provide enhanced/replacement habitats for species that will be displaced.”
This is of course nonsense and the conservation groups ‘advising’ NuGen in their heart of hearts must know that it is nonsense. Habitats such as the River Ehen, the floodplain of the Ehen, the Irish Sea, Duddon and Morecambe Bay Estuaries are irreplaceable. Alongside the mussels, “Displacement” of badgers, otters and other diverse wildlife is being promoted. In the case of badgers and so much else the displacement has already started with the drilling of the 300 “exploratory” boreholes on a staggering 552 hectares of varied habitat. We have heard that farmers neighbouring this greenfield site are non-too pleased to receive the “displaced” badgers. Farmers themselves are also being displaced with the existing Petersburgh Farm airbrushed out of the latest NuGen consultation site maps. It seems that farmers, otters and the fresh water pearl mussels are whether they like it or not, also “helping to shape” the Moorside plan.
Human Right to Health
The government and industry insists that the “dose” from radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants is not enough to have caused the well documented 10 fold excess of childhood leukaemia’s here in Cumbria. Instead the government and the media have subjected Cumbria to headlines trumpeting the “population mixing” theory as the cause of childhood leukaemia. NuGen enjoys full government support in Cumbria with the plan to import over 4000 temporary workers to build the biggest nuclear plant in Europe. Beckermet, the village in which Moorside is situated is a village of 1619 people. Cumbrians suffer a double whammy in that the government refuse to acknowledge that radioactive emissions are responsible for increased leukaemia’s but also refuse to take responsibility for their “population mixing” theory.
Dr Paul Dorfman served as Secretary to the UK governmental scientific advisory Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE) who reported on the issue of childhood leukaemia clusters. He has told Radiation Free Lakeland that: “Regards future risk of childhood ill-health in Cumbria – I, like you, am of the clear opinion that the acknowledged significant increase in childhood leukaemia in Cumbria is associated with radiation releases from nuclear power plant. However, there is no question but that the view of the key UK governmental radiation risk scientific advisory body – the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) – is that the Cumbrian childhood leukaemia excess is most likely associated with a ‘population mixing’. In other words, COMARE, and hence the UK government state that the Cumbrian childhood leukaemia excess is due to a novel virus brought in by a large number of construction workers which then goes on to infect a relatively isolated local population who do not have a defense against this virus. In this context, the UK government must take responsibility for this view. Thus the UK government must inform the local community to expect a potential increase in risk of childhood leukeamia following the construction of the planned nuclear facility at Moorside”. We have asked Tim Farron MP to press the Secretary of State again on this, so far the answers have been to brush away and ignore concerns.
- Although the area is huge we have been informed by former US nuclear regulator Arnie Gundersen that three AP1000 units “simply will not fit.” He has told us that “Construction needs and siting of the switchyard and siting the intake and discharge piping cannot be sandwiched into that small site. More land is required, driving costs up”.
- The network of roads will make emergency evacuation planning difficult. The sea and the mountains force evacuation southward. We note that the Copeland Local Plan for 2001 to 2016 says there should be NO NEW HAZARDOUS DEVELOPMENT or POPULATION INCREASE NEAR SELLAFIELD
- Cooling towers are still an “option”. But the towers would pull water from the Irish Sea and the drift from the towers would contain radiological contamination from Sellafield. Off shore cooling would mean heated discharges directly into the Irish sea through pipes perhaps three miles off shore, which stirs up benthic contamination as well as radionuclides.
- NuGen were coy about the transmission corridor. This cannot be a single line of pylons through Cumbria as many of those campaigning against the pylons believed. Instead there would be two corridors at least 10 miles apart. Two separate transmission corridors would be needed from three AP1000 reactors for “safety.”
- Constructing three units in six years has never been successfully achieved even with “modular” construction and no AP1000 reactors have ever been fired up anywhere. The construction schedule is a fantasy, as are the costs. BUT the financial costs are the least of it. The real costs would be to health, to the environment and to the well-being and the future of Cumbria and all our neighbours across the Irish Sea.
NuGen ask us to “Help Shape Our Plans”
The only shape we can logically offer is…..
Marianne Birkby, On behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power is flawed http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenergy/231/231we93.htm
Nuclear UK Energy Supplies: Lies Damned Lies and Statistics http://www.theecologist.org/campaigning/2884401/lies_damned_lies_and_energy_statistics_why_nuclear_is_so_much_less_than_it_claims_to_be.html
Moorside is too big and nasty to fight say Cumbria Wildlife Trust
The Ennerdale Granite
NuGen Lends a Hand for World Environment Day
Toshiba in Kazakhstan
Copeland’s Local Plan 2016
Confuse the Public with a Consultation
A pile of documents, some with over one hundred and twenty pages, all full of jargon, technical drawings and acronyms (DCO, GDA, NPPF, NPS EN-6, NN NPS,LEP, TTWA, AOD, BLF, MOLF, and so many more – most without explanation!) does not, in our opinion, have any resemblance to a consultation. The whole edifice is based on the premise that the proposed construction will inevitably go ahead, and the text is designed to convey only that. Whether the documentation is in any way suitable for a sensible debate with people who are more at home dealing with more mundane things is doubtful.
Does anyone from the public understand what a Harbour Empowerment Order is? They are expected to.
Sellafield’s Own Environmental Survey Says That Nuclear is Not CO2-Free
According to a sustainability appraisal that was undertaken in 2012 by Sellafield and NDA (the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority), the Sellafield nuclear site emitted 258,000 tonnes of CO2 and equivalents, a significant amount arising as a result of the consumption of 397,000 MW/h of energy, compared to 281,000 tonnes of CO2, and 411,000 MW/h of energy in 2011. [From that we arrive at 539,000 tonnes of CO2 and 808 MWh of electricity. It is not clear whether those figures include the resources used by the Fellside power generating plant which produces electricity for Sellafield.] Sellafield stopped generating electricity in 2003, but still produces all this CO2.
NuGen’s site will require permanently available emergency power generation. What will happen if this fails?
Both sites are located between 5 m and 50 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) along the Cumbria coastline. They are generally protected from coastal flooding by cliffs, the shingle spit of the Ehen and a railway embankment. However, coastal erosion and sea level rise has the potential to affect the southern end of the Sellafield site within the next 100 years if existing defences are not maintained.
Given the proposed longevity of the NuGen site, is it unreasonable to expect similar inundations will affect that site, too?
An estimated 1,600 m3 of soil is contaminated with radioactive material to Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) levels at Sellafield. This contamination reflects the industrial activities that have taken place on the site. We believe it is likely that the Moorside site must be similarly contaminated.
As well as the estimated 1,600 m3 of soil contaminated to ILW levels there is also estimated to be just over 1,000,000 m3 of soil contaminated to LLW levels. There is also estimated to be some 11,800,000 m3 of soil contaminated with radioactive material which will require management as High Volume Very Low Level Waste (HVVLLW). [So, nearly 13,000,000 cubic metres of contamination, not to mention the aquifer that is carrying leached radioactivity into the sea.]
Since 2006, the application of enhanced beach monitoring near Sellafield using the techniques developed for Dounreay has identified a number [over 1750 to March, 2013] of contaminated finds on local beaches. Arrangements are in place to monitor for these items and recover those which are found. The greater majority of these will never be found by the beach monitoring system. In fact more radioactive materials will already be arriving on the beaches as a result of NuGen’s “exploratory” boreholes disturbing decades of Sellafield’s reprocessing discharges.
The beach at Dounreay was closed to the public. Despite more radioactive particles being found on Cumbrian beaches, they are still open to the public and no warning notices are in place. Cumbria Wildlife Trust encourage youngsters to spend hours making sandcastles at St Bees during fund raising days.
In 2012, some 6.02 million m3 of water was abstracted from a number of sources. During this period the net amount of water used by the Sellafield site was 3.48 million m3. NuGen intend to apply to add their needs to this abstraction. Sellafield pay no commercial rates for this water.
NuGen’s requirement would be for a billion (1,000,000,000) gallons a day of cooling water.
“There should also be specific measures to minimise impact to fish and aquatic biota by entrainment or by excessive heat or biocidal chemicals from discharges to receiving waters.” Fat chance!