….Everyone can have a slice
….Everyone can have a slice
Dewilding Cumbria: Displace and Replace
Rewilding Ennerdale is a cause we can all get behind and was featured tonight on the ITV’s Countrywise programme. DEwilding is the opposite of REwilding. Incredibly there is a dewilding project going on right now in Cumbria. The rewilding and dewilding projects have one thing in common…..the insidious grip of the nuclear industry.
There is much to celebrate in Cumbria with the ‘Wild Ennerdale’ project. ‘Wild Ennerdale’ is a partnership between the three main landowners in the valley: The Forestry Commission, National Trust and United Utilities. Their stated vision is: “the evolution of Ennerdale as a wild valley for the benefit of people, relying more on natural processes to shape its landscape and ecology.”
Flowing out of the mountain wilderness of Ennerdale to the Irish Sea is the River Ehen. The Ehen and the Calder join the sea within just a few feet of each other at what was historically a farming hamlet around Sellafield Tarn, on the fertile West Cumbrian plain. Many a “Yeoman of Sellafield” is buried at St Bridget’s Church, Beckermet. At low tide the Ehen and the Calder merge and cross the beach as one. Sadly the last reaches of the Ehen’s sister river, the Calder no longer meanders brimful of salmon, freshwater pearl mussels and eels to the sea, but has been straightened and made into an industrial channel running through the Sellafield reprocessing plant.
Freshwater Pearl Mussels
Friends of the Lake District have pointed out that: “the River Ehen is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation. Mussels are indicators of excellent water quality and they help to maintain suitable habitat for other species, such as salmon and trout. Poor river health and an extraordinary lifecycle, including months clamped to the gills of fish, have conspired to put it on one of the famous Red Lists of critically endangered species compiled by the World Conservation Union. http://westcumbriariverstrust.org/assets/content/projects/downloads/pages-8-9-from-friends-of-the-lake-district-magazine-cl67-final.pdf
In 2012, Buglife, the Invertebrate Conservation Trust, reported that low outflow levels from Ennerdale reduced the flow in the River Ehen. Oxygen concentrations dropped to dangerous levels, and up to 90% of the freshwater pearl mussel population in the Ehen was killed. Buglife’s CEO Matt Shardlow said, “This is devastating news. The bloated corpses of animals born when Charles Darwin was alive have been floating out of their beds and being swept into the Irish Sea. The UK supports a large proportion of the world population for this species, and we have an international responsibility to protect these animals. This is probably the UK’s biggest failure to implement the Habitats Directive to date. We must understand the cause of this disaster so that it never happens again.”
Since then a lot of money and effort has quite rightly been spent on the “Pearls in Peril” project. The total project budget is £3.4 million. Nineteen of the rivers within the project are in Scotland, one in Wales and just one in England, the River Ehen. The River Ehen in Cumbria is key as it is home to the only breeding and largest population of freshwater pearl mussels left in England. The plan for the “biggest nuclear development in Europe” is slap bang on the last reaches of the river Ehen. Water flow into the River Ehen is the responsibility of United Utilites who are now phasing out the historic use of the Ehen as a freshwater reservoir. UU are in the process of building a pipeline from Thirlmere to serve West Cumbria including the Sellafield reprocessing plant. A Freedom of Information request revealed that The Environment Agency has issued several licences for Sellafield water abstraction including from the River Ehen. It is safe to say that the nuclear industry is already the single biggest user of freshwater in Cumbria even without the addition of the proposed “Moorside” plan.
Rules for One and Not the Other In Ennerdale, the modern day “yeomen” 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 being used as a dumping ground for the nuclear industry’s 300 “exploratory” borehole wastes on the “Moorside” site. The West Cumbria Rivers Trust who are coordinating the 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.”
“Displace and Replace”
This is of course nonsense and the conservation groups ‘advising’ NuGen must know in their heart of hearts 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. Don’t worry. There would be “replacement” of habitat elsewhere! In the case of badgers and so much else the displacement has already started with the drilling of the 300 “exploratory” boreholes on 552 hectares of varied habitat. We have heard that neighbouring farmers were non-too pleased to receive the “displaced” badgers. Farmers are also being displaced with the existing Petersburgh Farm airbrushed out of the latest NuGen consultation site maps.
No Raised Eyebrows, Just Bribery
Incredibly there are no raised eyebrows, no outcry from conservation, farming, fishing or wildlife groups. Rather strangely, Friends of the Lake District have not yet galvanised their supporters to strongly oppose the vast and universally damaging Moorside plan, only the pylons have come under fire. The deep concrete foundations, chemical/oil run off and industrialisation would irreversibly damage the Ehen and the groundwaters, even without the nuclear reactors ever being fired up.
Even though the Moorside consultation is ongoing, Cumbria Wildlife Trust have chosen to nail their colours to the nuclear mast and NuGen are of course more than happy to use CWT and the Wild Ennerdale project as greenwash: “Volunteers, including CEO Tom Samson and members of NuGen’s senior management team, joined teams from Cumbria Wildlife Trust and The Forestry Commission to construct dams and improve natural drainage in this rare landscape that provides a habitat for a number of protected species. 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” promised to CWT? We already know of tens of £thousands paid to CWT from SITA, whose parent company is one of the two NuGen partners.
This is blatent grooming of public opinion during a consultation and all parties concerned should be held to account for corruption of governance and trust.
NuGen and Cumbria Wildlife Trust’s alliance is a nasty block on dissenting voices. Ennerdale is of course one the places previously eyed up as a geological dump for heat generating nuclear wastes. Like Terminator, the plan may not be dead.
The resistance to the obscene Moorside project is growing, despite the corrupt climate of nuclear spin in which Cumbrians are gripped. Dewilding the Ehen is not an option either for the freshwater pearl mussels or for Cumbrians.
Over Ten thousand people have now signed the Stop Moorside petition. The Moorside project has the capacity to “displace” and “replace” far more than the freshwater pearl mussel.
Wild Ennerdale Stewardship Plan http://www.wildennerdale.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Stewardship-Plan-Text.pdf
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.
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!
A view of the Sellafield site from the north.
The farmland in the foreground includes where they are proposing to dig to install Moorside. Note Black Combe and Corney Fell in the background; round to the left are the lakeland fells and some of the highest mountains in England, including Scafell Pike, Great Gable and Lingmell, with the Langdale Pikes also visible.
The following is a Guest Blog from a close neighbour of the proposed Moorside Project.
Seven years ago we were horrified to learn that RWE, with the backing of DECC and the government, were planning on building a nuclear power plant on fields immediately behind us. We were even less impressed to find that we had just two weeks to formulate a response which might help protect us. Despite having no knowledge we did it. We even stood up to the bullying MPs of the Select Committee, who tried to cut short our measly 15 minute allocation. Along with so many others we eventually managed to get sense to prevail and the Kirksanton and Braystones submissions were both abandoned. E.on RWE and subsequently Germany as a whole, abandoned nuclear expansion.
Today, the reasons given by government for abandoning Braystones and Kirksanton remain just as valid and apply too, to the Moorside site.
Anyway, we heaved a sigh of relief. We could now get back to enjoying a peaceful retirement in our chosen location; one which our family has had connections with for 100 years.
Now, the Big Boys are back: this time with plans to build a three reactor site. They even came up with a brand new name for the area, “Moorside” , a green field site that has been re-labelled a brown field site for no good reason.
The various sales brochures that pose as NuGen consultation documents illustrate the cleanest, most modern buildings imaginable (just look at the vehicles depicted!). The impact of every adverse factor is deliberately, and misleadingly, minimised. Although, literally, just accross the road from the most dangerous site in Europe, there is no view in NuGen’s material that contains even a glimpse of Sellafield’s ugly and highly contaminated sprawl. In real life the composite of the two in such close proximity would seriously detrimentally affect the landscape.
The documents are not aimed at “normal” people who don’t know their NPS from their PROW. Every document is a prime example of how to fail to communicate in basic, good English. When their vocabulary failed, they made up words that certainly don’t appear in our dictionary e.g. “de-trunking” to the average person might imply a painful elephantine operation, not the reduction in status of a main road.
The proposed development would impose on local services and resources but such matters are simply not addressed in any of the documentation. Health services, social services, sexual and mental health provisions for the 6,500 (originally announced over 20,000) incomers have not been catered for. Currently the NHS in Copeland is struggling, even with the current level of need.
How could any emergency service cater for a rapid influx of over 6,500 people? Where are the requisite numbers of staff coming from? They couldn’t deal with an incident at one nuclear facility, let alone both simultaneously?
No schools, nurseries or maternity services are mentioned, so all the incomers must be childless and unmarried. If they actually bring a partner and child, then the numbers being added to the communities would be far greater than we are being told, and the loads on services and resources commensurately greater.
NuGen are so careless or deliberately misleading, that they have managed to omit a second harbour wall that could well go out to five kilometres – if they wished. The heavy loads that would be brought in by boat would require substantial works, so permanence seems likely. The smaller version of the harbour would only permit off-loading at certain states of the tide. As this might inconvenience NuGen the much larger one is likely to be very necessary. Yet this is missing from all the plans and artists impressions.
Have they considered the impact of these changes on the waves of a winter storm would have insofar as say Braystones Beach is concerned? Would they lesson or exacerbate problems for beach residents?
We know from Sellafield’s own documentation that the site, indeed the whole area is contaminated, particularly from the 1957 incident. Marine discharges deliberate and “accidental”, legacy and current, pollute the Irish Sea. Again, Sellafield’s own data shows that the most contaminated part of the beach is exactly where NuGen are proposing to dig for the harbour, roads, pipelines etc. The sea bed is currently being drilled to facilitate the building of cooling water heat exchangers which would have a temperature differential of between (depending on which NuGen “expert” you talk to) 2 degrees and 13 degrees. NuGen admit they have no idea what the impact of so much heat would have on the environment – marine or terrestrial. Yet we are supposed to believe that they have every contingency covered. Their boring operations are meanwhile disturbing huge amounts of sand and sediment and potentially altering the ground-water flows.
Spinning by the Lead Planner for NuGen, who just happens to have been the Lead Planner for the rabidly pro-nuclear Copeland Council, endeavours to convince us that 73% of people are in favour of the project. This response is to a compound question which conflates three questions as to the need for a new power station and that it needs to be nuclear and that it needs to be at Moorside. It is not possible, therefore, to agree that there needs to be additional capacity on the National Grid without agreeing that it has to be nuclear and that the only site is Moorside. This type of “clever” questioning has been seen so many times before especially during the dump consultation.
However, examination of the figures says differently: the responses to the dismally- failing consultation exercise show that, in fact, the figure is based on only 375 people. This is even after some meetings were held in Sellafield’s canteen! The 375 responders represents 0.5% of the population of Copeland area, and the 73% allegedly in favour of the build (ignoring for the minute that some of the positive responses came from outside the area) represents a mere 0.38% of those who would be affected. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the project, nor of the consultation exercise which, despite its huge cost, has only reached such a small proportion of its target. Adding in the Allerdale district reduces the percentages by nearly half. So, then only 0.25% of residents have responded and those “in favour” drop to 0.19%.
The lead planner failed on a £5.5 million project for Copeland. One hopes that he will fail on this too. The planner’s previous history does provoke the question: why hire someone who has already demonstrated failure? If a £5.5 million project fails, why hire them for a £10 billion one?
The large capital requirements of such construction projects always results in tempation, it appears. When large sums of money are involved there will always be those who wish to profit, whether legally or otherwise. Dishonesty seems to be a common trait amongst nuclear companies and those who service and supply them? Toshiba are no exception. More than forty companies such as various subsidiaries of Amec, Amey, Balfour Beatty, Costain’s, Wimpey, Kier, Laing O’Rourke, Morgan Est, Sir Robert McAlpine, Carillion and many other big names have been recently obliged to come to an agreement with GMB union after more than 3,200 construction workers were found on an illegal blacklist database run by The Consulting Association. The database had been compiled over 40 years and contained personal details of workers who had raised concerns, for example about health and safety. The firms admitted they “engaged in a terrible abuse of the civil rights of thousands of UK workers.” Would any of these companies be barred from tendering to build?”
Each generation of nuclear physicists assure us that they know what they are doing. They tell us that they now have a greater understanding than their predecessors and thus can obviate any and all of the risks. We can trust them only to do what is right and safe. Each generation has failed. We can see no reason why this projected development should not fail too. The consequences would be just as horrific, whether the result of accident, act of God, equipment failure, or just – and much more likely – human failure.
The project at Moorside would survive, in one form or another, for hundreds of years. Its legacy would endure far beyond that, probably for millenia. Is that really the best that West Cumbria can think of – to leave this dangerous, untreatable, toxic mess to pertetuity?
The human race has a history of defecating on its own doorstep. Can we not stop doing it, NOW please?
WHY STOP MOORSIDE
1. Flawed design which has no secondary containment
i. Potential for corrosion in reactor vessel – exacerbated by the dampness and salty atmosphere from its position on the coast.
ii. Would not withstand a terrorist attack, even with a concrete outer shell.
iii. Untried and untested design – despite what the NuGen staff told the public at the Braystones consultation meeting, there are no AP1000 reactors “up and running.”
iv. Reactor widely condemned as unsafe; allegations that the design has cut corners to reduce costs.
2. Environmental Impact
The only way to dissipate the output of the thermal equivalent of 6 Giga Watts (6,0000,000,000 Watts – the equivalent of 2,000,000 three-bar electric fires) is via direct discharge to the atmosphere/environment. In essence, a tremendous amount of heat needs to be got rid of, either by heating the air considerably (auxiliary cooling towers ‘an option’), or by warming the Irish Sea considerably; neither are likely to have a beneficial effect.
NuGen have confirmed they do not know what impact discharging that amount of heat into the Irish Sea would have. Attendees at consultations have regularly been given misleading, incomplete, conflicting or incorrect information eg the disparate statements from two member of staff over the heating impact of the discharges were confusing. Would it be 1-2 degrees or 10 – 13 degrees?
3. No Published Financial Data
Are NuGen going to gain from the Electricite de France (EDF) negotiations, which have been widely recognised as an extremely expensive and long-term committment?
Would they gain the saime £92.50 per kw/h? This is 2 and a half times the current price of electricity.
The deal with EDF guaranteed this level of income, index linked, for 50 years. Have NuGen been promised the same?
What subsidies and guarantees have the UK government made to NuGen and are the EU authorities aware of them?
Where is the money coming from for the new build and all the additional resources – NuGen or the British taxpayer?
Toshibal recently had to admit to overstating their profits by $122,000,000 – a fact known about by top management who were subsequently obliged to resign in disgrace. Are they deserving of our trust to build and supply our power?
4. Breach of Planning Guidance
The proposed Moorside site is immediately alongside Sellafield. An event at either could have devastating and exponential effect.
How would the alarm systems by made distinctive and recognisable?
Any changes to the topography and ground-water flow may have an adverse effect on the River Ehen’s Special Area of Conservation and the area’s Sites of Special Scientific Interest, that are based on singular hydrological phenomena.
It is not possible to forsee all consequences and mitigate against them.
NuGen propose mitigation for animals, but none is mentioned for residents.
5. The Proposed Sites are Contaminated by Radioactive Material
Land contamination at the adjacent Sellafield/Calder Hall/Windscale site amounts to 13,000.000 cubic metres of soil. The contamination is known to have affected the Moorside site, with the potential for affecting construction workers and local communties.
At least one aquifer near Sellafield is known to be radioactively contaminated. Digging large holes in its vicinity may change ground water flow.
The two harbours proposed, together with the cooling water pipelines, are in the area where the highest nuclear of finds of radioactive materials occurs. The disturbance of these sediments, sands and soils would inevitably pose a risk of more radiation-related illnesses amongst residents and workers. Furthermore, the area is a designated Marine Conservation Zone. The immediate area affected is the only remaining section of undeveloped beach and is admired by visitors and holiday makers from all over the country.
6. Unnecessary Development of Amenities “Atom Water Park”
The alleged “improvements” to the area are unnecessary and only of benefit to NuGen and its potential employees. Existing resources are mainly adequate for the current usage by locals and visitors. The development would kill off the tourist industry, in the same way that visitors are already deterred by Sellafield.
The current landscape is natural and will not be improved by anything that NuGen designs.
The development would be a significant encroachment on the seascape and an ugly intrusion, visible for long distances, thus producing an even greater loss of visual amenity from land and sea.
7. Outmoded Concept
The large-reactor template is supposedly to be superseded by smaller reactors which can be located nearer point of need, thus reducing transmission line losses and costs, major expensive changes to the National Grid while also providing more flexibility in the National Grid.
8. The Consultation Process is Flawed
Braystones beach residents (and others) failed to recieve the NuGen communications in a timely fashion.
The data from the current borehole survey would not be available until the consultation has closed.
That the consultation has failed is evidenced by the small number of respondents ie 0.5% of Copeland’s population.
9. Unsuitable Infra-structure
Construction traffic – goods and personnel – would be using roads totally unsuitable for the traffic which would be generated and there are no means of by-passing any accident or incident which blocks the road.
The current road situation cannot handle even a single exodus of staff during shift changes, so, should there be an “incident” – at either one or both sites, or if shift changes at Sellafield and Moorside coincide, it will be impossible for emergency vehicles to get through and departing staff and the public to escape the area.
A detour could require a 90 mile trip.
In the event of, say, heavy lifting equipment being required, or additional emergency services, it would take too long for them to get to the site.
Braystones residents have long complained about the state of the level crossing and railway infra-structure to no avail. They have pointed out that the line still relies on an infra-structure designed by Stephenson over 160 years ago. It is single-tracked and remotely controlled. No attempt is made to address the danger. None of the proposed railway spurs around the main site are included in the make-believe pictures provided by NuGen.
Ninety three incidents occurred between 5/1/10 to 3/4/15 (Network Rail data). Other incidents include derailments, bridge collapse under a chemical train which resulted in the destruction of two bungalows, and several landslips. There are still a number of complaints about the state of the railway line outstanding and unresolved. The proposed changes would not improve that section of line.
10. Ultimate Waste Disposal
There is no statement about the amount of waste that would be produced, nor its ultimate disposal.
It is likely that all high level waste would need to be stored on the site for at least 50 years. This means that there would be an even greater spread of highly toxic materials with all that would attract a terrorist attack.
The sole means of disposal of highly radioactive waste is a GDF (Geological disposal facility – or underground dump.)
Where is this dump? None has been built, its location remains undecided, and its long-term ability to contain the high levels of radioactive materials is almost impossible to predict. Even if one were built, the necessary treatment of such waste needed to enable its dumping, is proving impossible to achieve and of insufficient longevity.
Statements about half-lives mislead. No human-built structure has ever lasted the many tens of thousands of years over which some of the materials would remain dangerous and need to be kept safe. For some of the products, the passage of one half-life is insufficient to render them safe, and some would need the expiration of several half-lives before they can be handled. Ultimately, the underground dump would leak. Is this a satisfactory solution – just leave it to other generations?
NuGen’s documentation (Consultation Document, Stage 2, May, 2016, P. 47, Para 5) envisages encapsulation in buildings which haven’t yet been built and whose process is not adequate to make the waste safe for the entire time that some of it would remain dangerously active.
Encapsulation does not endure indefinitely. Eventually, the capsules break down and the radioactive materials enter the environment. The higher the radioactivity contained in a capsule the shorter the lifespan of the encapsulation.
How would the waste be removed and transported to the envisaged encapsulation process and, ultimately, the underground dump?
When the inevitable leak occurs, deep underground and in a highly radioactive environment, how would it be resolved and who would clean it up?
11. Intrusive Nature of the National Grid Connection
The plan necessitates the construction of a chain of highly intrusive pylons several miles long in an area only just outside the Lake District National Park, and they, the Moorside site and the Sellafield complex would all combine to produce the effect of a highly-industrialised area in a totally inappropriate setting.
The attractions of natural long-distance landscapes and seascapes will be adversely affected. Permanently.
12. Distortion of Political and Social Scene
Suggestions have been published that the nuclear industry has been having an excessive influence on the area – from commercial, educational, social, and political standpoints.
When the need for construction workers abates, the area would become further depressed and unemployment would further exceed the national norm.
Housing stock proposed to be built would become redundant as workers move away, thus depressing house- prices.
13. Overuse of natural resources
The site would demand copious quantities of water which would be drawn from a variety of sources. Most of these contribute to the natural beauty of the Lake District landscape.
14. Impinges on basic human rights
For all the above reasons it seems likely that NuGen’s plans would impinge on the human rights of residents, who are entitled to a peaceful enjoyment of their own homes.
NuGen should accept that their plans would have a devastating effect on residents during the construction and commissioning phases of the project and effectively for ever. Just the announcement of the plans has blighted property prices and caused hardship, as well as feelings of stress, insecurity and instability.
For the above reasons, we believe that the flaws in the consultation process, together with the above concerns, are conducive to an application for a judicial review. Some of the failures and deliberate untruths must surely merit legal challenge, too.
Another true fact is that……
when the nuclear plants have worn out, all that would be left for local Cumbrians is the toxic waste and contaminated land.
Today in Keswick 90% of the people we spoke to were opposed to new nuclear build in Cumbria. This does not tally with what NuGen are saying which is that “Cumbria wants new nuclear build.” A recent poll in the Evening Mail indicated that 85% of those voting do not want new nuclear build in Cumbria. Tourists said they would think twice about coming to Cumbria if dangerous new nuclear reactors were built here.
Dressed in nuclear waste barrels we handed out leaflets to tourists and locals outside the industry’s CONsultation day at the Skiddaw Hotel.
The only people going in to the CONsultation appeared to be the ones we had directed to it. Last year, in the very same hotel on the fourth anniversary of Fukushima (11.03.015) former US nuclear regulator Arnie Gundersen described Moorside as “Chernobyl on Steroids” Cumbria needs that like it needs a hole in the head.
A Spokesperson for Radiation Free Lakeland said: Chernobyl and Fukushima didn’t notice national boundaries and nor would Moorside which would threaten us all in the uk and way beyond. The visitors who love lakeland that i spoke with were deeply shocked at the new build nuclear plan. People who hold the Lake District dear want to stop Moorside.
This is NuGen’s “indicative” artists impression of Moorside. It does not include the associated nuclear sprawl that would inevitably build up around Moorside – auxillary power plants, reprocessing plants – cooling towers, more and more waste dumps and cooling ponds.
Amber Rudd described Nuclear as “beautiful” This is the proposed “beautiful” replacement for dozens of miles of ancient hedgerow, lonnings (green lanes), and the beautiful meandering flood plain of the River Ehen. Wildlife and habitats are being sold down the radioactive river alongside the people of Cumbria and their neighbours…meanwhile the mainstream conservation groups faff about the pylons – the very least of it!
Petersburgh farm has been demolished in the image to make way for a raised bund around the site, the same farm applied for a single wind turbine recently and was originally turned down by councillors on the grounds of wildlife and view.
So what about the wildlife? No worries NuGen say they will “replace” the habitat. We are concerned that NuGen are already in discussion with Cumbria Wildlife Trust to “replace” habitat, no doubt ££££s will change hands. We hope not, we hope Cumbria Wildlife Trust and Friends of the Lake District will, albeit late in the day, unequivocally oppose Moorside rather than faffing about with pylons. This is habitat that cannot be replaced, and this development drives a huge toxic wedge along the already denuded wildlife of West Cumbria’s coastline habitats, estuaries and sea. Will NuGen “replace” the habitat and health of the people of Cumbria too?
An Open Letter to the Mayor of Copeland : Mike Starkie
from Radiation Free Lakeland.
Dear Mayor Mike,
Thank you for organising the meetings regarding the rather intimidating
letters from NuGen. People are understandably upset about the possible
compulsary purchase of their homes in order to clear a space for the
building of temporary accommodation for thousands of nuclear workers.
We are a voluntary group and have many members based in Copeland who feel
that they are are on an unstoppable ride to untried untested new reactors.
They feel that any consultation which does not allow for an unequivocal
NO but merely looks for ideas on “mitigation” is a token gesture to
What has not been made public by NuGen or the government is the
“population mixing” aspect of bringing in thousands of temporary workers
to what is an essentially rural area. The benefit of temporary workers to
the industry, is of course, that they are not included on the unemployment
figures for Cumbria at a later date.
The industry run a Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Disease for
the workforce while pooh poohing any health effects outside the military
fences of nuclear installations. Those outside the gates are not
compensated for health impacts. Rather the government and industry have
grabbed onto the “population mixing” hypothesis. “Population mixing” is
the government and industry’s preferred explanation for the excess of
leukemias (and other radiation linked diseases) in the vicinity of nuclear
installations. This begs the question of why the industry and government
are not flagging up a warning: “population mixing around nuclear
installations can seriously damage your child’s health.”
The Leo Kinlen theory, put forward in 1988, suggests that exposure to a
common unidentified infection through population mixing results in
Childhood Leukaemia. “This exposure is greater”, Prof. Kinlen says, “when
people from urban areas mix with rural communities e.g. when construction
workers and nuclear staff move into the Sellafield area”.
I attach correspondence with Dr Dickinson whose subsequent work has also
been seized on by government and industry. In explaining significantly
increased childhood cancers around nuclear plants the government has been
persuaded by the “population mixing” model rather than emissions from
nuclear power plants.
A paper Dr Dickinson wrote in 1999 describes population mixing as “a
significant risk factor for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma, especially in young children, accounting for over 50% of cases in
Cumbria and most cases in Seascale”.
Doctors Heather Dickinson and Louise Parker of Newcastle University
claimed in 1999 that their work backs up Professor Leo Kinlen’s population
mixing theory as the likely cause of the cluster of childhood leukaemia
cases at Seascale near Sellafield.
In correspondence with Dr Dickinson she referred me back
to the Department of Health who then referred me back to The North of
England Children’s Cancer Research Unit – a perfect circle of avoidance.
When I asked NuGen at a public meeting whether they would be issuing a
health warning regarding “population mixing” they looked at me blankly.
They looked equally blank when I asked if the Compensation Scheme for
Radiation Linked Diseases would be extended to the wider population.
Please can you find out if NuGen subscribe to the “population mixing”
theory and if so will they be issuing a health warning.
Radiation Free Lakeland
The following letter of objection to NuGen’s 40 (or more) offshore “exploratory” boreholes which would churn up the biggest nuclear dump in the world has been sent to the Marine Management Organisation. The nuclear industry seemingly has been able to bypass local democracy and cut straight to the chase. The only chance the public gets to object is now in what the Marine Management Organisation laughingly calls a “public consultation.” The public however cannot easily find the information or the tools to object. But here is our strong objection. Please ask your local representatives if there has been any democratic vote or debate on this and if not why not! In contrast the wind turbines off Walney were hugely debated by local councillors, one of the concerns being (quite rightly) the churning up of radioactive silts. *Petition to sign and share.* Also Please write with your objection before the 12th February quoting MLA/2015/00475 to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Marine Management Organisation,
You will be deciding in the next week on an Application from NuGen for 40
offshore boreholes MLA/2015/00475
Radiation Free Lakeland are writing to object strongly to the issuing of
the license to NuGen for 40 offshore boreholes in the vicinity of
Sellafield for the following reasons…
The offshore boreholes would impact negatively on
1. Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ)
2. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (Directive 2008/56/EC).
3. Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC);
4. Bathing Waters Directives (BWDs)
5. Shellfish Waters Directive (SFWD)
And would be in breach of the legally binding international OSPAR
convention which enshsrines the “precautionary principle.”
We note that NuGen have not included any mitigation measures with regard
to their borehole activity. The Habitats Regulations make it clear that
no damage to internationally protected wildlife sites will be countenanced
unless there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Importance
(IROPI) as described in Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive
However, even in the case of IROPI, the Habitats Regulations indicate that
any damage or loss of part of an internationally protected site must be
compensated by creation of new habitat of the same type, quality and
extent as that lost to ensure the integrity of the Natura 2000 suite of
sites. In EN-6 DECC make it clear that they consider the case for
nuclear power stations comes under IROPI. Loss of or damage to a large
area of the habitats of the Duddon Estuary SPA/Ramsar and part of the
Morecambe Bay SAC along with the Irish Sea Marine Conservation Zones
cannot however be compensated for elsewhere, and if this cannot be done,
the Habitats Directive cannot be complied with.
NuGen reiterate statements throughout their license application such as:
“The survey works are not expected to have an impact to features of
interest within the Drigg Coast SAC. This is disingenuous. To say that
radionuclides are “not expected” to impact on special wildlife sites is
not credible or within the remit of the legally binding international
OSPAR convention which enshrines the “precautionary principle”. Neither
is the statement that: “Any transportation of sediments will be within
background storm levels for the area” as it is now thought that the
increase in radioactive particle finds on Cumbrian beaches in recent years
is due to increased storm surges.
Have NuGen carried out any investigations as to the cumulative effect of:
increased storm surges and resuspension of radioactive particles from
It is impossible to mitigate against the resuspension of radionuclides
from the silts of the Irish Sea bed. The Irish Sea has been a dumping
ground for Sellafield’s nuclear wastes and also the now closed Marchon
plant at Whitehaven which is thought to have supplied Sellafield with
thousands of gallons of acids for reprocessing. Sellafield has dumped at
least a quarter of a ton of plutonium into the Irish Sea along with a
cocktail of other radionuclides.
The old Marchon plant has dumped polonium into the Irish Sea and a 2014
report published by the US National Library of Medicine, National
Institutes of Health has said: “Since the cessation of phosphoric acid
production (in 1992) and subsequent closure and decommissioning (2004) of
the Rhodia Consumer Specialties Limited plant in Whitehaven, the
concentration levels of polonium-210 ((210)Po) in local marine materials
have declined towards a level more typical of natural background. However,
enhanced concentrations of (210)Po and lead-210 ((210)Pb), due to this
historic industrial activity (plant discharges and ingrowth of (210)Po
from (210)Pb), have been observed in fish and shellfish samples collected
from this area over the last 20 years.”
What impact would borehole drilling (and the proposed Moorside
infrastructure ) have? Would “historic discharges” of the cocktail of
radionuclides be resuspended?
All the evidence points to the MMO applying the “precautionary principle”
and refusing NuGen a licence to disturb what is in effect the worlds
biggest nuclear dump at the bottom of the Irish Sea.
We would draw the MMO’s attention to the fact that there is a wealth of
evidence that even chronic low level radiation exposure has a detrimental
impact on wildlife …..and humans.
on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
Marine Conservation Zones in the Irish Sea
Natura 2000 – The Irish Sea, Morecambe Bay, The Duddon Estuary
Polonium from the old Marchon Plant at Whitehaven
History of the Marchon Plant –biggest producer of acid in the world –
essential to Sellafield reprocessing
Environmental effects of chronic low level radioactive contamination
Below is a letter sent to Stuart Young Leader of Cumbria County Council
Dear Councillor Young,
Has there been any Council debate or democratic vote at all on the 340
onshore and offshore boreholes churning up decades of Sellafields nuclear
Since the 1950s Sellafield has been pumping plutonium and a cocktail of
other radioactive isotopes out of twin sea discharge pipes into the Irish
Sea. Because the radioactive pollution is detectable the pollution can be
traced as it flows into the arc of sea around Britain. In April 1997 the
Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Nova Scotia found Sellafield radiation
had reached the Arctic but most of the radioactive sediment ends up on the
sea bed. The Irish Sea bed is basically the worlds biggest nuclear dump.
The one thing you do not do with a nuclear dump on land or sea is disturb
the site and release radionuclides to the biosphere.
But this is exactly what the developers of the proposed Moorside nuclear
plant are doing right now with plans for more.
Radiation Free Lakeland urge Cumbria County Council to write opposing the
offshore disturbance of the biggest nuclear dump in the world.
Please Email the Marine Management Organisation who have to give formal
consent to the offshore borehole drilling:
Quoting MLA/2015/00475 (Deadline 12 Feb.)
When the Walney wind turbines were proposed there was quite rightly debate
and concern by Cumbrian councillors that this would churn up decades of
radioactive sediment from Sellafield. It seems that unlike the wind
industry, the nuclear industry can cut straight to the chase and avoid any
such debate or scrutiny.
NuGen say that borehole drilling by the multi national, Furgo would cause
no more churning up of radioactive sediment than storm surges in the Irish
Sea. This is a false argument as storm surges are thought to have led to
the widely documented increase in hot radioactive particles being washed
up on Cumbrian beaches over the past few years.
Have any environmental surveys have been carried out by NuGen on the
cumulative impact of : increased storm surges and the drilling of 40
boreholes not far from the Sellafield discharge pipes?
We would like to ask if NuGen have exemption from the OSPAR Convention
which says that: By virtue of the precautionary principle, preventive
measures are to be taken when there are reasonable grounds for concern
that human activities may bring about hazards to human health, harm living
resources and marine ecosystems, damage amenities or interfere with other
legitimate uses of the sea, even when there is no conclusive evidence of a
The Environment Agency do not carry out their own sampling, preferring to
leave it to the nuclear industry to essentially self regulate This is
already happening with the 300 onshore boreholes on the green fields
between Sellafield and Beckermet. Decades of radioactive seepage is
planned to be brought to the surface to be pumped into to the river Ehen,
ending up in the Irish Sea.
on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
Freedom of Information Request answer from the Environment Agency
indicates that the nuclear industry is out of control….literally
NuGen the developers of the proposed Moorside nuclear plant are drilling
and blasting around 350 boreholes in an area between Sellafield and the
village of Beckermet. This is happening both onshore and offshore to
investigate the geology for the proposed Moorside nuclear
plant. The 300 onshore boreholes were given the go ahead by
delegated decision from one council official in Copeland. In
other words there was no scrutiny. Radioactive wastes from decades of
Sellafield leakage are now being brought up by these boreholes from deep
underground to be dumped directly into the River Ehen. Incredibly the
nuclear industry is responsible for reporting radioactive contamination to
the Environment agency, in other words the nuclear industry is both
poacher and gamekeeper. There is no truly independent scrutiny.
The offshore investigation is to: inform the design of cooling water
tunnels. NuGen plan to drill/blast 40 boreholes in the seabed off
Sellafield to survey the area in preparation for the proposed enormous
direct cooling system and the outfall and intake pipes for the biggest
nuclear development in Europe
When the Walney Wind Turbines some distance away were being discussed by
Cumbrian Councillors there was concern because of the churning up of
radioactively contaminated silts. The NuGen test boreholes are in an area
directly in the path of decades of nuclear dumping. It seems that NuGen
have the advantage of bypassing Cumbria County Councils planning regime
and are able to cut straight to the chase. The Marine Management
Organisation have to give formal consent.
The application for 40 boreholes is available to view on the public
register of the Marine Management Organisation but despite this being a
public consultation it is not easy to find.
Email: email@example.com. Quoting
MLA/2015/00475 Write to Mark Herbert¨Marine Licensing Case
Officer Her Majestys Government – Marine Management
Organisation Lancaster House¨Hampshire Court¨Newcastle Upon
TyneNE4 7YH Tel: 0300 123 1032 Web:
http://www.gov.uk/MMO Twitter: @the_MMO Facebook:
The Marine Management Organisations tag line is: Enabling sustainable
growth in our marine area.
Walney Wind Turbines:
Concern over Radioactive Silt being churned up
Fugro Borehole Drilling (300 on the land) Around 40 on the Irish Sea Bed
just off Sellafield.
Learn More at Radiation Free Lakeland: https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com
NuGen Boreholes in the Irish Sea near Sellafield will churn up and resuspend what is effectively the worlds biggest nuclear dump sitting on the sea bed. Please write, oppose, take a stand. This is due to start in late February.
NuGeneration Limited (NuGen) wants to build three nuclear reactors (Moorside) near Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria UK. NuGen is a consortium of Japan’s Toshiba and France’s ENGIE (GDF-Suez). Like all nuclear reactors, they will legally discharge lethal radioactive materials into waterways. Although ocean dumping of nuclear waste is supposed to be illegal, offshore pipelines apparently remain a loophole. Radioactive discharges from the offshore pipeline(s) of Moorside would add to the already heavy radioactive burden of the Irish Sea and ultimately the Arctic. Not only Britain, but Ireland, Norway and those concerned with the Arctic should be alarmed. Additionally, cooling water intake pipes trap and kill marine life. Of current concern, borehole surveys for the intake and outfall pipes will disturb over half a century of radioactive sediment from nearby Sellafield’s discharges.
Artwork by Marianne Birkby
As explained by Marianne Birkby of Radiation Free Lakeland:
“NuGen plan to drill/blast 40…
View original post 645 more words
29 October 2015
Dear Environment Agency,
In August 2015 Nugen (Toshiba/Engie) issued a press release saying
that they would apply for an EA license to pump “slightly
radioactively contaminated ” water from 100 boreholes into the
Have the Environment Agency carried out their own measurements of
radioactivity/chemical composition on liquid discharge from the 100
boreholes or are they relying on NUGENs own documentation?
Have the Environment Agency issued a license to dump radioactively
contaminated groundwater into the River Ehen?
If so, We would like to have sight of the rationale for this
contravention of the EAs own remit to protect the River Ehen from
pollution. For example the reasoning behind the new pipeline from
Thirlmere to protect Ennerdale and the River Ehen would be
undermined by allowing increased and concentrated radioactive
discharges from Moorside’s 100 boreholes into the River Ehen. This
Sellafield seepage would normally be held deep underground
percolating gradually over many years to the River Ehen.
Where is the radioactively contaminated soil and rock from 100
boreholes being dumped?
Are the Environment Agency carrying out their own independent
measurements of the radioactive/chemical composition of the soil
and rock from the 100 boreholes? Eg Have samples been sent to
independent laboratories worldwide? (Or are the EA relying on
NUGENs own documentation?
On behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland
We note that Energy Solutions described the buffer zone land
adjacent to Sellafield as being “too contaminated” from Sellafield
seepage to be dug deep and made into a low level radioactive waste
dump ( Keekle Head inquiry). We note also that the Copeland Local
Plan up to 2016 says that there should be NO development on this
land, in other words the land should be left as a buffer zone.