Peter McDonald spoke at the DECC Discussion in Thornbury on Saturday 6th February.
We have another video on Youtube produced by David Price.
He had good news for us locals when he said the building of Mega New Nuclear Plants at Shepperdine is "Not a done deal"
We have since heard what our various Councils think and the sheer craziness of building the new plants on a Zone 3 flood plain, on an Estuary (therefore it needs cooling towers), with the necessity for the commuinty to live next to high grade radioactive waste( for up to 150 years)---without volunteering, with 1500 lorry movements a day for 14 months, with up to 16,300 transient workers (largely foreign) working in the area for up to 10 years.
All this to produce expensive electricity which will have to be subsidised by the taxpayers and the also the electricity consumers.
I could make comments about this desperate Government but others can do a far better job!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drDlqCFIN3E&feature=channel
David will be attending both the "DECC-Please See the Light" Protest and The Eon/Rwe meeting afterwards.
Please keep informing people about the protest --We have also had a new banner sign made which we hope to get positioned in a prominent place over the weekend.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Nuclear Industry is now Sponsoring "Made in Cumbria"
Jobs are more important than nature....the crazy human being will destroy the earth!
Made in Cumbria - now funded by the nuclear and arms industry
Made in Cumbria members learnt on Monday by email that they will be funded
wholly by the nuclear and the arms trade industry. Made in Cumbria was
established in 1989 as an economic development initiative by Cumbria
County Council to promote the sales of crafts, gifts and local foods.
The nuclear industry's tentacles are securing an ever tighter grip on
Lakeland -
now Made in Cumbria has succumbed and has been handed over from County
Council ownership to the tender care of Sellafield Ltd and BAE Systems
who wholly fund the Cumbria Chamber of Commerce. While Sellafield Ltd
and the nuclear industry has the funds to buy passive acceptance - it does
not have the wherewithal to cover its own public liability insurance
regarding the High Level Waste tanks. The hazard is so great that no
insurance company would be able to provide cover. Nuclear insurance
subsidy is a bigger scandal than MPs expenses and Radiation Free Lakeland
have written to Tim Farron asking him to support a Parliamentary Motion
calling for an end to nuclear subsidies.
The motion EDM 866 from Paul Flynn, the MP for Newport West, states that the
nuclear industry insists it is looking for "no subsidies for any new
nuclear plants they may build in Britain; believes that comments by such
chief executives are disingenuous and misleading because many nuclear
subsidies paid for by British taxpayers are already in place, including
the multi-billion pound underwriting of insurance liabilities.."
As a working wildlife artist Marianne Birkby has been a long time member
of Made in Cumbria who have provided a good service to members.
" I am appalled to be an involuntary part of an organisation funded by
the nuclear and arms industry. Made in Cumbria funding should come
directly from central/local government not taxpayers money filtered
through the nuclear industry in a bid to buy passive acceptance. I won't be renewing my
membership when it runs out".
Made in Cumbria - now funded by the nuclear and arms industry
Made in Cumbria members learnt on Monday by email that they will be funded
wholly by the nuclear and the arms trade industry. Made in Cumbria was
established in 1989 as an economic development initiative by Cumbria
County Council to promote the sales of crafts, gifts and local foods.
The nuclear industry's tentacles are securing an ever tighter grip on
Lakeland -
now Made in Cumbria has succumbed and has been handed over from County
Council ownership to the tender care of Sellafield Ltd and BAE Systems
who wholly fund the Cumbria Chamber of Commerce. While Sellafield Ltd
and the nuclear industry has the funds to buy passive acceptance - it does
not have the wherewithal to cover its own public liability insurance
regarding the High Level Waste tanks. The hazard is so great that no
insurance company would be able to provide cover. Nuclear insurance
subsidy is a bigger scandal than MPs expenses and Radiation Free Lakeland
have written to Tim Farron asking him to support a Parliamentary Motion
calling for an end to nuclear subsidies.
The motion EDM 866 from Paul Flynn, the MP for Newport West, states that the
nuclear industry insists it is looking for "no subsidies for any new
nuclear plants they may build in Britain; believes that comments by such
chief executives are disingenuous and misleading because many nuclear
subsidies paid for by British taxpayers are already in place, including
the multi-billion pound underwriting of insurance liabilities.."
As a working wildlife artist Marianne Birkby has been a long time member
of Made in Cumbria who have provided a good service to members.
" I am appalled to be an involuntary part of an organisation funded by
the nuclear and arms industry. Made in Cumbria funding should come
directly from central/local government not taxpayers money filtered
through the nuclear industry in a bid to buy passive acceptance. I won't be renewing my
membership when it runs out".
NPS on Energy a Failure say Planners!
NATIONAL PLANNING STATEMENT ON ENERGY A FAILURE SAY PLANNERS
24-Feb-10
Press Notice from the Royal Town Planning Institute
Wednesday 22nd February 2010 PR09
NATIONAL PLANNING STATEMENT ON ENERGY A FAILURE SAY PLANNERS
The RTPI, the professional body that represents 22,000 planners has submitted a robust response to the Government’s consultation on a National Policy Statement for Energy, which will determine how proposals to build new energy facilities are decided upon by the new Infrastructure Planning Commission.
Matt Thomson, Acting Director Policy & Partnerships at the RTPI said:
“The draft national policy statement on energy is not fit for purpose. It makes no attempt to translate the national need for energy infrastructure into guidance on where such development should be located and so provides no reassurance for either potential investors, or indeed local communities.
We face a critical situation in providing the right framework to encourage investment into much needed new energy facilities, particularly as the Government has made strong commitments on reducing carbon emissions from energy.
The current energy policy statement markedly fails in this respect, disappointingly repeating and reinterpreting established Government policy but saying nothing new about where we as a nation should be going in terms of the location or timing of new energy infrastructure development. We have called for a National Planning Framework which would pull together the myriad of policies and guidance.”
ENDS
For further information please contact:
Jamie Hodge, RTPI Communications and Public Affairs Officer
T: 020 7929 8182
M 07826 849 165
E jamie.hodge@rtpi.org.uk
24-Feb-10
Press Notice from the Royal Town Planning Institute
Wednesday 22nd February 2010 PR09
NATIONAL PLANNING STATEMENT ON ENERGY A FAILURE SAY PLANNERS
The RTPI, the professional body that represents 22,000 planners has submitted a robust response to the Government’s consultation on a National Policy Statement for Energy, which will determine how proposals to build new energy facilities are decided upon by the new Infrastructure Planning Commission.
Matt Thomson, Acting Director Policy & Partnerships at the RTPI said:
“The draft national policy statement on energy is not fit for purpose. It makes no attempt to translate the national need for energy infrastructure into guidance on where such development should be located and so provides no reassurance for either potential investors, or indeed local communities.
We face a critical situation in providing the right framework to encourage investment into much needed new energy facilities, particularly as the Government has made strong commitments on reducing carbon emissions from energy.
The current energy policy statement markedly fails in this respect, disappointingly repeating and reinterpreting established Government policy but saying nothing new about where we as a nation should be going in terms of the location or timing of new energy infrastructure development. We have called for a National Planning Framework which would pull together the myriad of policies and guidance.”
ENDS
For further information please contact:
Jamie Hodge, RTPI Communications and Public Affairs Officer
T: 020 7929 8182
M 07826 849 165
E jamie.hodge@rtpi.org.uk
Thursday, 25 February 2010
The Gazette Features "The See The Light Protest"---JOIN THE THRONG NEXT WEEK
It would be great to have lots of protesters at Thornbury Town Hall next Thursday the 4th of March at 6.15pm!
Candle light protest planned against new nuclear station
Print Email Share Comments(0) By Liza-Jane Gillespie »
CAMPAIGNERS against proposals to build a new nuclear power station at Shepperdine are planning a protest march through the streets of Thornbury.
Members of Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy (SANE) will be taking the action next month.
The See the Light protest will coincide with a meeting being held in the town by Horizon, the company behind plans to build a new nuclear power station in the district.
The company is holding the meeting to keep local people up to date with its plans and to provide information about the planning process. Reg Illingworth, chairman of SANE, said: "The people of the villages of the Severn Vale and the town of Thornbury know that what the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is proposing is wrong on so many grounds. It is reassuring to have the support of South Gloucestershire Council and numerous politicians.
"We invite everybody with any concerns to join our protest on the evening. It is still by no means certain that the government will listen to us in their rush to rectify the damage done by doing nothing about filling the energy gap for far too long.
"It will be for a maximum of one hour. It could help save our community. Your support is valued."
SANE is a newly formed group of local residents living close to the nominated site referred to in the DECC draft National Policy Statement for Energy (NPS).
Campaigners plan to meet outside Thornbury Town Hall at 6.15pm on Thursday, March 4.
The protesters, carrying placards, torches, candles and other forms of light, will then walk through Thornbury towards Cossham Hall where Horizon is holding its public meeting.
Messages and images will also be projected onto the sides of buildings in the town in support of the campaign.
For more information visit www.shepperdineagainstnuclearenergy.blogspot.com
Candle light protest planned against new nuclear station
Print Email Share Comments(0) By Liza-Jane Gillespie »
CAMPAIGNERS against proposals to build a new nuclear power station at Shepperdine are planning a protest march through the streets of Thornbury.
Members of Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy (SANE) will be taking the action next month.
The See the Light protest will coincide with a meeting being held in the town by Horizon, the company behind plans to build a new nuclear power station in the district.
The company is holding the meeting to keep local people up to date with its plans and to provide information about the planning process. Reg Illingworth, chairman of SANE, said: "The people of the villages of the Severn Vale and the town of Thornbury know that what the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is proposing is wrong on so many grounds. It is reassuring to have the support of South Gloucestershire Council and numerous politicians.
"We invite everybody with any concerns to join our protest on the evening. It is still by no means certain that the government will listen to us in their rush to rectify the damage done by doing nothing about filling the energy gap for far too long.
"It will be for a maximum of one hour. It could help save our community. Your support is valued."
SANE is a newly formed group of local residents living close to the nominated site referred to in the DECC draft National Policy Statement for Energy (NPS).
Campaigners plan to meet outside Thornbury Town Hall at 6.15pm on Thursday, March 4.
The protesters, carrying placards, torches, candles and other forms of light, will then walk through Thornbury towards Cossham Hall where Horizon is holding its public meeting.
Messages and images will also be projected onto the sides of buildings in the town in support of the campaign.
For more information visit www.shepperdineagainstnuclearenergy.blogspot.com
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Jonathon Porritt-----Ex Environment Advisor to Labour Government Speaks in Taunton
- PUBLIC DISCUSSION MEETING -
Jonathon Porritt CBE
Former Director of Friends of the Earth and the Sustainable Development Commission,
Founder of Forum for the Future
Is nuclear power
The answer?
Chaired by Graham Watson
Lib-Dem MEP for the South West
----------------------
Temple Methodist Church
Upper High Street Taunton
Tuesday 16th March 7.30pm
http://www.stophinkley.org/ 07798 666756
Jonathon Porritt CBE
Former Director of Friends of the Earth and the Sustainable Development Commission,
Founder of Forum for the Future
Is nuclear power
The answer?
Chaired by Graham Watson
Lib-Dem MEP for the South West
----------------------
Temple Methodist Church
Upper High Street Taunton
Tuesday 16th March 7.30pm
http://www.stophinkley.org/ 07798 666756
Draft NPS for Nuclear power to at The House of Lords on Tuesday March 9thbe Considered in The Grand Committee
From the DECC press release yesterday (see http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=411425&NewsAreaID=2&HUserID=886,779,890,849,780,684,710,705,765,674,677,767,684,762,718,674,708,683,706,718,674&ClientID=-1) I noticed that the House of Lords is due to debate the NPSs shortly and have now spotted that the House of Lords have a debate scheduled:
"Tuesday, 9 March 2010"
"Debate: DRAFT NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION (EN-6) CONSIDERATION IN GRAND COMMITTEE [LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH]
. Speakers, in alphabetical order:
• L Greaves
• L Hunt of Kings Heath (Minister)
• L Teverson "
Lord Hunt is the Minister for Energy at DECC. Lord Greaves is Lib Dem and from Pendle in Lancs so probably speaking for Kirkstanton and Braystones? Lord Teverson is Lib Dem and from Cornwall and is the Lib Dem spokesman for Energy and Climate Change possibly a speaker for Hinkley? Just guessing though.
Does anyone know anyone in the House of Lords who might be interested in our cause?
If so it would be a good idea to try and get a few on side and send them copies of the responses from SANE and S. Glos Council, best to send a pdf rather than sending them to the blog which they may have trouble with logging in to etc. Pdf's attached for anyone to use.
I dont know any Lords(!) but have looked through the list to see if I can work out which ones come from around here and found a Lord Cope of Berkeley (ex conservative MP for s.glos) who should know the area?
Also the Leader of the House of Lords is a Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, which is in the Forest of Dean, but she is presumably labour and as leader no doubt wrapped up in the plans of the current government?
Any other thoughts?...Your comments are always appreciated
"Tuesday, 9 March 2010"
"Debate: DRAFT NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION (EN-6) CONSIDERATION IN GRAND COMMITTEE [LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH]
. Speakers, in alphabetical order:
• L Greaves
• L Hunt of Kings Heath (Minister)
• L Teverson "
Lord Hunt is the Minister for Energy at DECC. Lord Greaves is Lib Dem and from Pendle in Lancs so probably speaking for Kirkstanton and Braystones? Lord Teverson is Lib Dem and from Cornwall and is the Lib Dem spokesman for Energy and Climate Change possibly a speaker for Hinkley? Just guessing though.
Does anyone know anyone in the House of Lords who might be interested in our cause?
If so it would be a good idea to try and get a few on side and send them copies of the responses from SANE and S. Glos Council, best to send a pdf rather than sending them to the blog which they may have trouble with logging in to etc. Pdf's attached for anyone to use.
I dont know any Lords(!) but have looked through the list to see if I can work out which ones come from around here and found a Lord Cope of Berkeley (ex conservative MP for s.glos) who should know the area?
Also the Leader of the House of Lords is a Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, which is in the Forest of Dean, but she is presumably labour and as leader no doubt wrapped up in the plans of the current government?
Any other thoughts?...Your comments are always appreciated
The Guardian Suddenly Realises There is Oppositon to Eons Plans---A bit Slow?
Bradwell and Oldbury reactors face oppositionLocal councils say government's Infrastructure Planning Commission ignore local people's concerns
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 February 2010 21.12 GMT Article history
Bradwell, home to one Britains first nuclear power stations, is not keen for another. Photograph: Uppa
Local councils have opposed two of the 10 proposed new nuclear reactor sites in England and Wales, accusing the government of trying to railroad them through under its new planning regime.
The councils will make the first challenge to the controversial new Infrastructure Planning Commission, which was established to speed up the planning process for large projects and starts handling planning applications next month.
Bob Neill, shadow minister for planning, told the Guardian the government's national policy statements, which shape the IPC's decisions on questions such as the proposed reactor sites, amounted to a "diktat". The Conservatives have pledged to abolish the planning quango.
The government closed its consultation on the planning statements yesterday. In its submission, South Gloucestershire council, which is opposing the planned E.ON and RWE reactor at Oldbury, said the risk of flooding had been underestimated. It also said councils did not have the resources to fully assess the applications for nuclear companies. It added: "The draft [national planning statement] effectively confers a presumption in favour of development."
The Guardian has also learned that Colchester borough council and West Mersea town council are objecting to the nomination of Bradwell, which is owned by EDF, as a new reactor site. Essex county council has yet to make a decision. Professor Andy Blowers, a former government adviser on nuclear waste, said: "What is the point of the IPC or any consultation if you are going to have the nomination rammed down your throat?"
A planning officer involved said: "I do not believe either the energy companies or the government have engaged with the general public that are the most affected by new energy infrastructure as much as they could. There is a moral duty to provide a more personal and embracing form of engagement."
The objections of the local authorities are unlikely to block the nominations, but they underline the strength of feeling against the new planning regime. The IPC rather than the government will have the final say on any large infrastructure project, and it is guided by national rather than local considerations. Under the Conservatives, the secretary of state would make the decision. The party claims this is more democratic.
"Labour's national policy statements will not be ratified by parliament, but merely issued by diktat of the secretary of state," Neill said. "Our proposals will strengthen the role of parliament and ensure a vital democratic check and balance on controversial matters of national energy policy."
A government spokesman insisted that the IPC would take into account local objections. "The new system will be faster and fairer with fuller public scrutiny.
"Local authorities will set out the effects of proposed infrastructure on the local area, and people will be able to make their case at every stage of the application and decision making process and speak at open-floor hearings."
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 February 2010 21.12 GMT Article history
Bradwell, home to one Britains first nuclear power stations, is not keen for another. Photograph: Uppa
Local councils have opposed two of the 10 proposed new nuclear reactor sites in England and Wales, accusing the government of trying to railroad them through under its new planning regime.
The councils will make the first challenge to the controversial new Infrastructure Planning Commission, which was established to speed up the planning process for large projects and starts handling planning applications next month.
Bob Neill, shadow minister for planning, told the Guardian the government's national policy statements, which shape the IPC's decisions on questions such as the proposed reactor sites, amounted to a "diktat". The Conservatives have pledged to abolish the planning quango.
The government closed its consultation on the planning statements yesterday. In its submission, South Gloucestershire council, which is opposing the planned E.ON and RWE reactor at Oldbury, said the risk of flooding had been underestimated. It also said councils did not have the resources to fully assess the applications for nuclear companies. It added: "The draft [national planning statement] effectively confers a presumption in favour of development."
The Guardian has also learned that Colchester borough council and West Mersea town council are objecting to the nomination of Bradwell, which is owned by EDF, as a new reactor site. Essex county council has yet to make a decision. Professor Andy Blowers, a former government adviser on nuclear waste, said: "What is the point of the IPC or any consultation if you are going to have the nomination rammed down your throat?"
A planning officer involved said: "I do not believe either the energy companies or the government have engaged with the general public that are the most affected by new energy infrastructure as much as they could. There is a moral duty to provide a more personal and embracing form of engagement."
The objections of the local authorities are unlikely to block the nominations, but they underline the strength of feeling against the new planning regime. The IPC rather than the government will have the final say on any large infrastructure project, and it is guided by national rather than local considerations. Under the Conservatives, the secretary of state would make the decision. The party claims this is more democratic.
"Labour's national policy statements will not be ratified by parliament, but merely issued by diktat of the secretary of state," Neill said. "Our proposals will strengthen the role of parliament and ensure a vital democratic check and balance on controversial matters of national energy policy."
A government spokesman insisted that the IPC would take into account local objections. "The new system will be faster and fairer with fuller public scrutiny.
"Local authorities will set out the effects of proposed infrastructure on the local area, and people will be able to make their case at every stage of the application and decision making process and speak at open-floor hearings."
New Youtube video from David Price --EXCELLENT LOOK AT THIS NOW
We have just received a new video from David Price which shows an excellent representaion of what the cooling towers would look like at the Shepperdine site.
DECC must realise that the Shepperdine site is wholly inappropriate for a development even half this scale.
Please be aware that the See The Light Protest will start at 6.15pm on March 4th.
The link for theeYoutube film is:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=vZa5G36_GTA&v=j5vb5ZEjMu8
You can also find it on Youtube by searching for Oldbury on Severn and cooling towers.
A big thanks to David!
DECC must realise that the Shepperdine site is wholly inappropriate for a development even half this scale.
Please be aware that the See The Light Protest will start at 6.15pm on March 4th.
The link for theeYoutube film is:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=vZa5G36_GTA&v=j5vb5ZEjMu8
You can also find it on Youtube by searching for Oldbury on Severn and cooling towers.
A big thanks to David!
Monday, 22 February 2010
Environmental Law Foundation Has A New Facebook Page
Please have a look at this facebook page ELF are actively trying to help people like you and me!
Hi all,
We would like to invite you to join our brand new E.L.F. facebook page, specially designed for our SCP volunteers, E.L.F. members, fans and visitors.
This page aims to inform people of forthcoming SCP events and latest E.L.F. news on environmental legal issues and concerns.
Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions and recommendations are warmly welcome.
We hope you will enjoy socializing and sharing fresh information.
Have a lovely day & see you soon on:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Environmental-Law-Foundation/323662509152
The Environmental Law Foundation
Suite 309, 16 Baldwins Gardens
London EC1N 7RJ
General Tel: 020 7404 1030
Fax: 020 7404 1032
Email: info@elflaw.org
Website: www.elflaw.org
Hi all,
We would like to invite you to join our brand new E.L.F. facebook page, specially designed for our SCP volunteers, E.L.F. members, fans and visitors.
This page aims to inform people of forthcoming SCP events and latest E.L.F. news on environmental legal issues and concerns.
Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions and recommendations are warmly welcome.
We hope you will enjoy socializing and sharing fresh information.
Have a lovely day & see you soon on:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Environmental-Law-Foundation/323662509152
The Environmental Law Foundation
Suite 309, 16 Baldwins Gardens
London EC1N 7RJ
General Tel: 020 7404 1030
Fax: 020 7404 1032
Email: info@elflaw.org
Website: www.elflaw.org
Protests from Kirkstanton and Braystones.
Have a look at this link to a short srticle on Granada TV News about the concerns of villagers at Braystone and Kirkstanton.
http://www.itv.com/granada/nuclear-protest78790/
http://www.itv.com/granada/nuclear-protest78790/
Protesters upset with DECC and lack of Democracy
Protesters blockade Sizewell
The protest at Sizewell this morning
FIVE anti-nuclear power protesters blocked the entrance to Sizewell power station today.
Representatives from the People Power not Nuclear Power Coalition wearing arm tubes locked themselves on to concrete just under the barrier at the main entrance around 6.40am.
The demonstrators brought big black barrels with them daubed with 'Don't Nuke the Climate'. Other protesters are also there in support.
The group said they are demonstrating against the flawed government consultation on nuclear new build - which ends today - and the dumping of local democracy.
Police at the scene this morning
Sizewell is one of ten sites nominated for nuclear new build. Together with Hinkley in Somerset, it is said to be one of the two most likely sites for one of the first new nuclear reactors to be built by EDF Energy.
“In order to build new nuclear power stations, government dumped local democracy", said Mell Harrison, 38 from Geldeston and a campaigns worker for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) said.
“We are blockading Sizewell today, to show that the government will not achieve its aim to fast track nuclear power. If local democracy is dumped, then nonviolent direct action will be our answer. Any new build will be met with resistance, and this blockade today is just the beginning.”
"The government and the nuclear industry present nuclear power as low carbon energy and a necessity to combat climate change; but nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and does not deliver any significant reductions in carbon emissions. It locks us into a centralised energy system, and is part of the problem of climate change, not part of the solution."
A Suffolk Police spokesman confirmed officers were called to Sizewell just before 6.55am
Police and Sizewell's security team were keeping an eye on the protesters during the first few hours of their protest.
Jim Crawford, acting station director at Sizewell B power stations said: “EDF Energy respects the right of people to protest in a peaceful and lawful manner. Throughout this protest the station has continued to generate safely.
We have participated fully in the debate about the need for new nuclear and we are committed to maintaining openness and transparency now and in the future.
“At Sizewell we are aware that people are interested in the nuclear debate. We have recently held a number of public meetings in the villages local to Sizewell to discuss the potential new build issues here and we were encouraged by the levels of local support for our plans.
“EDF Energy is happy to talk to any group about their concerns about future plans here for Sizewell.
“We believe strongly that nuclear has a vital role in maintaining UK electricity supplies in the future as a low-carbon generator.”
From http://www.stopnuclearpower.blogspot.com/
The protest at Sizewell this morning
FIVE anti-nuclear power protesters blocked the entrance to Sizewell power station today.
Representatives from the People Power not Nuclear Power Coalition wearing arm tubes locked themselves on to concrete just under the barrier at the main entrance around 6.40am.
The demonstrators brought big black barrels with them daubed with 'Don't Nuke the Climate'. Other protesters are also there in support.
The group said they are demonstrating against the flawed government consultation on nuclear new build - which ends today - and the dumping of local democracy.
Police at the scene this morning
Sizewell is one of ten sites nominated for nuclear new build. Together with Hinkley in Somerset, it is said to be one of the two most likely sites for one of the first new nuclear reactors to be built by EDF Energy.
“In order to build new nuclear power stations, government dumped local democracy", said Mell Harrison, 38 from Geldeston and a campaigns worker for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) said.
“We are blockading Sizewell today, to show that the government will not achieve its aim to fast track nuclear power. If local democracy is dumped, then nonviolent direct action will be our answer. Any new build will be met with resistance, and this blockade today is just the beginning.”
"The government and the nuclear industry present nuclear power as low carbon energy and a necessity to combat climate change; but nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and does not deliver any significant reductions in carbon emissions. It locks us into a centralised energy system, and is part of the problem of climate change, not part of the solution."
A Suffolk Police spokesman confirmed officers were called to Sizewell just before 6.55am
Police and Sizewell's security team were keeping an eye on the protesters during the first few hours of their protest.
Jim Crawford, acting station director at Sizewell B power stations said: “EDF Energy respects the right of people to protest in a peaceful and lawful manner. Throughout this protest the station has continued to generate safely.
We have participated fully in the debate about the need for new nuclear and we are committed to maintaining openness and transparency now and in the future.
“At Sizewell we are aware that people are interested in the nuclear debate. We have recently held a number of public meetings in the villages local to Sizewell to discuss the potential new build issues here and we were encouraged by the levels of local support for our plans.
“EDF Energy is happy to talk to any group about their concerns about future plans here for Sizewell.
“We believe strongly that nuclear has a vital role in maintaining UK electricity supplies in the future as a low-carbon generator.”
From http://www.stopnuclearpower.blogspot.com/
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Canada Likely to put Nuclear on Back Burner!
Closure of Pickering good for green energy; fixing Darlington wrong: Greenpeace
Toronto, Canada — News reports indicating Ontario Power Generation (OPG) will not rebuild the four Pickering B nuclear reactors is another blow to the future of the Canadian nuclear industry and could provide an opportunity for expanding green energy, if the McGuinty government allows it, says Greenpeace.
“Choosing not to risk billions of dollars of public money rebuilding the Pickering reactors is the right decision although proposals to continue running Canada’s most dangerous nuclear station as long as possible are a significant concern,” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a nuclear specialist with Greenpeace. “In light of a decision to close Pickering, any decision to proceed with rebuilding the Darlington reactors would be folly and block the future expansion of green energy.”
Greenpeace was responding to a Toronto Star report today that Ontario would eventually close the four Pickering B reactors due to high cost but would refurbish the Darlington reactors.
“Pickering’s eventual closure would open up space on the electricity grid and give the McGuinty government the opportunity to increase its baseline targets for green energy by allowing green energy to replace Pickering,” said Stensil. “Right now, nuclear energy blocks grid access for green energy and is the biggest long-term barrier to expanding green energy.”
Greenpeace has long opposed the McGuinty government’s nuclear plan to spend $26 billion to maintain nuclear at 50 per cent of Ontario’s supply, which deprives green power of the grid space it needs to grow over the long-term. The McGuinty plan has underestimated nuclear costs, over-estimated the growth of electricity demand and given short shrift to green power and conservation.
“What Onarians need to see now are the true costs of running Pickering past its end date and rebuilding Darlington, that will show the lack of wisdom in continuing to rely on nuclear plants,” said Stensil. “We also need to see the safety studies to know what the risks will be.”
Ontario suspended its purchase of two new CANDU reactors last summer when the cost topped $26 billion—$20 billion more than estimated and equal to the projected cost for the government’s full plan of building new reactors and rebuilding all existing ones.
“Ontario’s electricity planners got it wrong in 2006 when they told the McGuinty government it would cost just $6 billion to rebuild Pickering or replace it with a new reactor. Closing Pickering is the first step in turning around the Titanic. The McGuinty government must give the space opened up by Pickering to green energy developers,” said Stensil.
A decision to not rebuild Pickering would also show things are going from bad to worse for the Canadian nuclear industry in 2010, which was plagued by cost over-runs, reactor cancellations and embarrassments in 2009. Unlike other reactor designs, CANDU reactors require extensive repairs at mid-life that make them uneconomical compared to other reactor designs. New Brunswick is now threatening to sue the federal government over the 16 month delay in repairing the Point Lepreau reactor.
“This news report foreshadows the death of CANDU. Who in his right mind would spend billions on a reactor that would cost even more billions to repair at midlife? CANDU can’t compete against other expensive reactor designs let alone green energy,” said Stensil.
While Greenpeace supports closing Pickering, it is concerned that the risks of accidents will increase if Ontario Power Generation were allowed to run the reactors longer than planned because it has decided it can’t afford to spend billions needed to repair the station.
“Operating an aging reactor after its shut down date is like driving on bald tires. It might not be a problem in perfect driving conditions but do you want to take that risk?” said Stensil
Toronto, Canada — News reports indicating Ontario Power Generation (OPG) will not rebuild the four Pickering B nuclear reactors is another blow to the future of the Canadian nuclear industry and could provide an opportunity for expanding green energy, if the McGuinty government allows it, says Greenpeace.
“Choosing not to risk billions of dollars of public money rebuilding the Pickering reactors is the right decision although proposals to continue running Canada’s most dangerous nuclear station as long as possible are a significant concern,” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a nuclear specialist with Greenpeace. “In light of a decision to close Pickering, any decision to proceed with rebuilding the Darlington reactors would be folly and block the future expansion of green energy.”
Greenpeace was responding to a Toronto Star report today that Ontario would eventually close the four Pickering B reactors due to high cost but would refurbish the Darlington reactors.
“Pickering’s eventual closure would open up space on the electricity grid and give the McGuinty government the opportunity to increase its baseline targets for green energy by allowing green energy to replace Pickering,” said Stensil. “Right now, nuclear energy blocks grid access for green energy and is the biggest long-term barrier to expanding green energy.”
Greenpeace has long opposed the McGuinty government’s nuclear plan to spend $26 billion to maintain nuclear at 50 per cent of Ontario’s supply, which deprives green power of the grid space it needs to grow over the long-term. The McGuinty plan has underestimated nuclear costs, over-estimated the growth of electricity demand and given short shrift to green power and conservation.
“What Onarians need to see now are the true costs of running Pickering past its end date and rebuilding Darlington, that will show the lack of wisdom in continuing to rely on nuclear plants,” said Stensil. “We also need to see the safety studies to know what the risks will be.”
Ontario suspended its purchase of two new CANDU reactors last summer when the cost topped $26 billion—$20 billion more than estimated and equal to the projected cost for the government’s full plan of building new reactors and rebuilding all existing ones.
“Ontario’s electricity planners got it wrong in 2006 when they told the McGuinty government it would cost just $6 billion to rebuild Pickering or replace it with a new reactor. Closing Pickering is the first step in turning around the Titanic. The McGuinty government must give the space opened up by Pickering to green energy developers,” said Stensil.
A decision to not rebuild Pickering would also show things are going from bad to worse for the Canadian nuclear industry in 2010, which was plagued by cost over-runs, reactor cancellations and embarrassments in 2009. Unlike other reactor designs, CANDU reactors require extensive repairs at mid-life that make them uneconomical compared to other reactor designs. New Brunswick is now threatening to sue the federal government over the 16 month delay in repairing the Point Lepreau reactor.
“This news report foreshadows the death of CANDU. Who in his right mind would spend billions on a reactor that would cost even more billions to repair at midlife? CANDU can’t compete against other expensive reactor designs let alone green energy,” said Stensil.
While Greenpeace supports closing Pickering, it is concerned that the risks of accidents will increase if Ontario Power Generation were allowed to run the reactors longer than planned because it has decided it can’t afford to spend billions needed to repair the station.
“Operating an aging reactor after its shut down date is like driving on bald tires. It might not be a problem in perfect driving conditions but do you want to take that risk?” said Stensil
Proposed Art Project for The Shepperdine Site
John Grey has donated some sign boards (Up to 10) that are approx 3m long by 1m high.
Would any artists or schools or anybody be interested in using them to create a work of art about our concerns over the Shepperdine Project.
We than have various (open air) sites in our villages and Thornbury that they could be displayedin ---Including some REALLY prominent sites
At the end of their working life---which is hopefully with the rejection of the project--- we will have a little exhibition before auctioning them .
Anybody interested? I have 3 of the signs at my house at the moment...I can arrange delivery
Would any artists or schools or anybody be interested in using them to create a work of art about our concerns over the Shepperdine Project.
We than have various (open air) sites in our villages and Thornbury that they could be displayedin ---Including some REALLY prominent sites
At the end of their working life---which is hopefully with the rejection of the project--- we will have a little exhibition before auctioning them .
Anybody interested? I have 3 of the signs at my house at the moment...I can arrange delivery
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Oldbury Parish Councils Overview of their DECC Views
Overview of Concerns
The parishioners of Oldbury on Severn are not resourced to respond to a consultation of this style and nature. However, the significance of what is proposed by the policy statements, particularly EN6, on the day to day lives of our Parishioners (specifically Shepperdine) and adjoining parishes is of such magnitude that special effort has been put into our response. Considerable time, community involvement and analysis have been used to prepare the formal response in the hope that the consultation documents will be amended to reflect our concerns prior to designation.
The key issues of our concern include:
1. The way the consultation documents are written.
2. The possibility of dismissing valid reasons for refusing a development application
3. The lack of correlation between geographic power supply and demand in site selection
4. The “one reactor” basis for the Appraisal of Sustainability and Habitats Regulation Assessment
1. The way the consultation documents are written
We have little faith that the IPC process will result in an unbiased outcome. The NPS’s will be the prime documents guiding the IPC through the evaluation process, but they over emphasise the need for more Generating Capacity and advise that the presumption should be in favour of development.
2. The possibility of dismissing valid reasons for refusing a development application
Following directly from 1. above we are led to the conclusion that the IPC process could become more about mitigation, even stifling arguments which could show that adverse effects should preclude development. In this regard we note that the policy of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest can be applied to dismiss all other reasons for refusing a development application.
3. The lack of correlation between geographic power supply and demand in site selection
We feel that the SSA was not really strategic in so far as the sites were nominated by Commercial Interests. Whether or not the sites selected are the best choice we are not qualified to say, but there seems to be little correlation between geographic supply and demand.
Continued on page 5
4. The “one reactor” basis for the appraisal of Sustainability and Habits Regulation assessment
The assessments which provided the basis on which the SSA made its recommendations for Nuclear Sites were at a high level; so much so that its results must be considered as very questionable. EN6 admits that the Appraisals of Sustainability and the Habits Regulations Assessment were done on the basis of one reactor at most sites. This, we feel, is significant as it leaves it to the IPC to judge the suitability of the sites on this basis. With the guidance in the Policy being biased toward acceptance this is worrying when coupled with the issues the Policy states are not the concern of the IPC.
As far as Oldbury itself is concerned the main issues are as follows:-
Visual and Landscape impacts cannot be fully mitigated particularly because the use of an Indirect Cooling System involves the use of structures which cannot be hidden. Cooling Towers, whatever the design, will have negative visual impact. Oldbury is the only site requiring this technology. The footprint and mass of the proposed new Facility will be very significantly greater than the existing Magnox facility. Being the only estuarine site, Oldbury is unique in so far as the negative impacts can be easily seen from both the English and Welsh sides of the estuary which is in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is classified as an area which has gained National and International recognition (RAMSCAR etc).
Flooding is a major concern. Again, the area is unique in so far as it is in Flood Zone 3 and has characteristics which have led the Parish Council on many occasions to try to persuade the local authorities to fund improvements. Whilst it is recognised that any threat from the River Severn should not be underestimated, it is Internal flooding caused by run-off from development which is our main concern. The fact that a new facility at Oldbury would be built up onto a higher level is a concern not only in terms of flooding but also because access roads would have to be raised accordingly. This again would have an adverse visual impact in this low lying area.
Infrastructure. In particular the local roads can be realistically described as inadequate and in need of repair, but going further afield to the M5, the vision is that everyday will be like a Bank Holiday (or worse) in terms of traffic and traffic congestion. The area is ill equipped to handle the potential volumes of traffic, irrespective of the possibility of a wharf. The adverse impacts resulting cannot be fully mitigated.
Arrangements for the disposal of radioactive waste are a concern, but it is also an area where we do not have the technical competence to address the issue in depth. Suffice it to say that locally there are serious concerns and doubts as to the arrangements as described in EN6, particularly relating to long term on-site storage and the Governments approach to final disposal. For example, we are aware that successive governments have signally failed to get agreement on a geological repository over nearly 40 years of trying.
Continued on page 5
How can we have any faith in the volunteering process that is now being considered? The fact that the IPC is not expected to consider storage as an issue during their assessment process is again a factor which reduces confidence in the IPC process.
Cumulative effects of other major infrastructure projects, all within the Bristol Channel/Severn catchments, have not yet been taken into account. We have serious concerns for the future of the estuary because there is still no clear understanding of what else may become part of the mix of energy sources, particularly in respect to tidal power. Power distribution for Nuclear and Tidal generated power will be a big problem.
The development of a new nuclear power station, if it goes ahead, will change the character of Shepperdine and the surrounding area out of all recognition. The adverse impacts during construction will be extremely difficult to bear, even with mitigation. This will not necessarily improve during the operational stage, as it is committing the local community to a different way of life, and, if Development is permitted, some form of compensation which recognises this must be forthcoming.
The parishioners of Oldbury on Severn are not resourced to respond to a consultation of this style and nature. However, the significance of what is proposed by the policy statements, particularly EN6, on the day to day lives of our Parishioners (specifically Shepperdine) and adjoining parishes is of such magnitude that special effort has been put into our response. Considerable time, community involvement and analysis have been used to prepare the formal response in the hope that the consultation documents will be amended to reflect our concerns prior to designation.
The key issues of our concern include:
1. The way the consultation documents are written.
2. The possibility of dismissing valid reasons for refusing a development application
3. The lack of correlation between geographic power supply and demand in site selection
4. The “one reactor” basis for the Appraisal of Sustainability and Habitats Regulation Assessment
1. The way the consultation documents are written
We have little faith that the IPC process will result in an unbiased outcome. The NPS’s will be the prime documents guiding the IPC through the evaluation process, but they over emphasise the need for more Generating Capacity and advise that the presumption should be in favour of development.
2. The possibility of dismissing valid reasons for refusing a development application
Following directly from 1. above we are led to the conclusion that the IPC process could become more about mitigation, even stifling arguments which could show that adverse effects should preclude development. In this regard we note that the policy of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest can be applied to dismiss all other reasons for refusing a development application.
3. The lack of correlation between geographic power supply and demand in site selection
We feel that the SSA was not really strategic in so far as the sites were nominated by Commercial Interests. Whether or not the sites selected are the best choice we are not qualified to say, but there seems to be little correlation between geographic supply and demand.
Continued on page 5
4. The “one reactor” basis for the appraisal of Sustainability and Habits Regulation assessment
The assessments which provided the basis on which the SSA made its recommendations for Nuclear Sites were at a high level; so much so that its results must be considered as very questionable. EN6 admits that the Appraisals of Sustainability and the Habits Regulations Assessment were done on the basis of one reactor at most sites. This, we feel, is significant as it leaves it to the IPC to judge the suitability of the sites on this basis. With the guidance in the Policy being biased toward acceptance this is worrying when coupled with the issues the Policy states are not the concern of the IPC.
As far as Oldbury itself is concerned the main issues are as follows:-
Visual and Landscape impacts cannot be fully mitigated particularly because the use of an Indirect Cooling System involves the use of structures which cannot be hidden. Cooling Towers, whatever the design, will have negative visual impact. Oldbury is the only site requiring this technology. The footprint and mass of the proposed new Facility will be very significantly greater than the existing Magnox facility. Being the only estuarine site, Oldbury is unique in so far as the negative impacts can be easily seen from both the English and Welsh sides of the estuary which is in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is classified as an area which has gained National and International recognition (RAMSCAR etc).
Flooding is a major concern. Again, the area is unique in so far as it is in Flood Zone 3 and has characteristics which have led the Parish Council on many occasions to try to persuade the local authorities to fund improvements. Whilst it is recognised that any threat from the River Severn should not be underestimated, it is Internal flooding caused by run-off from development which is our main concern. The fact that a new facility at Oldbury would be built up onto a higher level is a concern not only in terms of flooding but also because access roads would have to be raised accordingly. This again would have an adverse visual impact in this low lying area.
Infrastructure. In particular the local roads can be realistically described as inadequate and in need of repair, but going further afield to the M5, the vision is that everyday will be like a Bank Holiday (or worse) in terms of traffic and traffic congestion. The area is ill equipped to handle the potential volumes of traffic, irrespective of the possibility of a wharf. The adverse impacts resulting cannot be fully mitigated.
Arrangements for the disposal of radioactive waste are a concern, but it is also an area where we do not have the technical competence to address the issue in depth. Suffice it to say that locally there are serious concerns and doubts as to the arrangements as described in EN6, particularly relating to long term on-site storage and the Governments approach to final disposal. For example, we are aware that successive governments have signally failed to get agreement on a geological repository over nearly 40 years of trying.
Continued on page 5
How can we have any faith in the volunteering process that is now being considered? The fact that the IPC is not expected to consider storage as an issue during their assessment process is again a factor which reduces confidence in the IPC process.
Cumulative effects of other major infrastructure projects, all within the Bristol Channel/Severn catchments, have not yet been taken into account. We have serious concerns for the future of the estuary because there is still no clear understanding of what else may become part of the mix of energy sources, particularly in respect to tidal power. Power distribution for Nuclear and Tidal generated power will be a big problem.
The development of a new nuclear power station, if it goes ahead, will change the character of Shepperdine and the surrounding area out of all recognition. The adverse impacts during construction will be extremely difficult to bear, even with mitigation. This will not necessarily improve during the operational stage, as it is committing the local community to a different way of life, and, if Development is permitted, some form of compensation which recognises this must be forthcoming.
Rockhamptons Submission to DECC
ROCKHAMPTON PARISH COUNCIL
CONSULTATION ON DRAFT NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS FOR ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMENTS SUBMITTED 18.02.10
Question 2: Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide the Infrastructure Planning Commission with the information it needs to reach a decision on whether or not to grant development consent?
Answer: No.
• The Statement does not provide any tangible criteria or Principles, against which the overall cumulative dis-benefit and/or risk associated with a proposed development can be weighed against the benefit.
This is of particular relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury, where significant dis-benefit/risk is apparent, and yet no specific or unique benefit of the site has been identified.
• The Statement does not set down any tangible criteria or Principles against which a justification not to pursue all potential mitigation measures can be assessed, eg a test of reasonable practicability, or gross-disproportion, with respect to the time, trouble and cost.
This is of particular relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury, where significant levels of mitigation might be required in respect of visual impact of cooling towers and likelihood of flooding.
• The Statement seemingly provides guidance to the IPC on the basis that each application is to be considered in isolation. Thus any dis-benefit accruing from overall development of the national energy infrastructure will not be minimised, and individual applications may be granted, or refused, on the basis of incomplete or partial information.
This shortcoming is of particular relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury, as there are several less sensitive/contentious sites elsewhere in the country that are not being actively pursued.
Question 4: Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide suitable direction to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on the need and urgency for new energy infrastructure?
Answer: Yes, but the question is irrelevant.
• Decisions regarding the nature and pace of the development of new energy infrastructure are being and will continue to be taken by the generating companies on the basis of their commercial objectives.
Question 5: Do the assessment principles in the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide suitable direction to the Infrastructure Planning Commission to inform its decision-making?
Answer: No
• See the answer given to Question 2.
• Most of the direction/guidance given in relation to any ‘assessment princples’ is of a general, subjective, and qualitative nature, which leaves considerable scope for interpretation and judgement by the IPC. No guidance is given on how to consider the cumulative dis-benefit of any proposal, or on the weighting that should be given to each aspect.
• There is seemingly no requirement for the IPC to consider whether development of an alternative site would be in the public interest, or to seek Independent Specialist advice on impacts associated with the Discretionary criteria of the SSA.
Question 7: Do you have any comments on any aspect of the draft Overarching Energy Policy Statement not covered by previous questions?
Answer: Yes
• The Overarching Energy Policy Statement does not include any requirement to minimize, as far as reasonably practicable, the overall harm/cost associated with measures taken to secure reliable energy supplies for the country into the future. Decisions regarding the location, scale, scope and nature of individual energy infrastructure developments can therefore seemingly be made on the basis of arbitrary or commercial considerations, rather than on what is in the best interests of those affected by those developments.
This issue is of particularly relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury, which is being pursued in the absence of any visible consideration of alternative options (renewable of otherwise) that would provide secure electricity supplies.
Question 16: Do you think that the Government should formally approve (‘designate’) the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement?
Answer: No
• The Statement does not provide a clear strategy against which potential development of the collection of ten sites identified within the document can be assessed. The declaration that all ten sites are necessary is not consistent with the projected requirements for future generating capacity as set down in EN-1. The total requirement for all forms on non-renewable capacity has been estimated to be 25 GW; ten nuclear sites alone could generate up to 33 GW.
• The Statement does not include any requirement for the programme of additional nuclear capacity to be developed on the basis of minimum harm. The sites now being actively considered for development have been chosen by the generating companies, and reflect their commercial interests. A National Policy Statement produced by the DECC should be formulated such that priority is given to the interests of British public, rather than the profits of the generating companies.
Question 17: Does the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement provide the Infrastructure Planning Commission with the information it needs to reach a decision on whether or not to grant development consent?
Answer: No
• See responses to Question 2
• No guidance is given regarding the need to consider the relative merits of the ten identified sites. With typical output per site of 3.3 GW, and a number of practical constraints on the number of sites that can be developed at one time, those sites that attract the least dis-benefit should be developed in the first instance.
There are very significant dis-benefits associated with development of the site at Oldbury, and yet this site has been chosen for potential early development, ahead of sites at Hartlepool, Sellafield, Heysham, Bradwell, Braystones and Kirksanton.
Question 18: Does the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement provide suitable direction to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on the need and urgency for new nuclear power stations?
Answer: Not in a manner that allows proper consideration of specific applications.
• See answer to Question 4.
• The Statement does not allow any meaningful assessment to be made of the importance or significance of proposed development at any particular site. No information or guidance is given with regard to the constraints or otherwise arising from present or future capacity of the grid. There are this no arguments or evidence to support the development of particular sites and not others.
This aspect is of particular relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury. The assessment of future grid requirements set down in EN-1 predicts an additional 3.3 GW of nuclear capacity from the South West, supplying load in the Midlands. The new plant at Hinkley Point could provide this capacity on its own, and planning for that development is already well advanced. On what basis therefore should development at Oldbury be pursued when there are other sites around the country that are far more suitable and which are not being actively developed?
Question 20: Does the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement appropriately cover the impacts of new nuclear power stations and potential options to mitigate those impacts?
Answer: Not in any meaningful way.
• See the answer to Question 2.
• The adoption of hyperbolic cooling towers at Oldbury would constitute a massive impact on the local environment. The adoption of other types of tower would introduce an unacceptable level of noise pollution, and have commercial dis-benefits for the operator. The Statement provides no methodology for assessing the balance of these arguments, and provides no Principles by which a decision can be made.
• Development at Oldbury will require major traffic/infrastructure developments and will pose potential threats of increased likelihood of flooding. Although numerous guidance documents are identified within the NPS, no methodology is set down that allows the inevitable unavoidable dis-benefit of such development to be weighed against the (unique?) benefits of this site.
• The NPS does not tackle the very significant issue of the obvious requirement to up-grade existing transmission lines and or provide additional transmission lines to connect to the grid.
Question 21: Do you agree with the Government’s preliminary conclusion on the potential suitability of sites nominated into the Strategic Siting Assessment, as set out below?
(h) Oldbury
Answer: No. Although we are not in a position to provide informed technical comment on the majority of SSA criteria, it is self-evident that the construction of even a single reactor at Oldbury would challenge the acceptance standards in a number of crucial areas. Taken together, the cumulative potential dis-benefit associated with the development of this site is considerable. Of particular concern are:-
D1: Flooding, storm surge and tsunami.
• The site does not pass either The Sequential Test or The Exception Test for flood risk, as set out in EN-1 when consideration is given to the availability of other around the country. The proposal to site a nuclear power station in Flood Zone 3 can be justified only on the basis that no alternative sites are available to provide essential power generation for the country. This is clearly not the position (there are several other sites around the country that are not being actively developed), and no arguments or evidence is presented in any NPS to suggest that this will ever be the case.
• Whilst technical assessments of flooding risk and the provision of appropriate flood protection will need to be completed in order to secure the Nuclear Site License from NII, the proposal to store radioactive waste on such a high-risk site for up to 160 years raises a fundamental issue. The approved design for Oldbury will need to be shown to be adequate for the lifetime of the plant, ie 160 years. Paragraph 121 of the NII document ‘Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Facilities (2006) states:- “If the external hazards over which the dutyholder has no control are judged to be too great to be accommodated by the design of the plant, the use of a site may be precluded for its proposed purpose.” Although the flood risk assessments will attempt to take account of climate change effects, it is already apparent that existing climate change models cannot provide reliable predictions over such timescales, and thus the hazard must be judged to be effectively too great to be accommodated by the design.
• Notwithstanding the possibility of being able to make an acceptable deterministic case with respect to the flooding hazard, development of a nuclear site in a high flood-risk area, when other sites are available but not being developed, is contrary to the fundamental ALARP principle on which all safety cases for nuclear plant are founded. We would expect NII to review the Site License application on this basis.
• It is apparent that protection/mitigation of flood risk at this site will require the construction of very significant civil works and the movement of vast amounts of materials. There is no justification for the adoption of such extreme measures when consideration is taken of the fact that Oldbury is by no means an ‘essential’ site for development.
D8: Areas of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value.
• Given the topographic and scenic qualities of the Severn Vale, the adoption of cooling towers of any significant height would be totally unacceptable. The adoption of forced draught or hybrid towers could present unacceptable noise pollution to the local area.
• The roads and infrastructure of the local area would require very significant development to support construction, effectively breaking up what is currently a quiet rural environment.
• The obvious requirement to either up-grade existing transmission lines, or construct additional ones, is likely to result in major visual impact. This aspect is not given any prominence in the SSA. We would expect details of all proposed transmission lines to be presented in the first phase of consultation.
CONSULTATION ON DRAFT NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS FOR ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMENTS SUBMITTED 18.02.10
Question 2: Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide the Infrastructure Planning Commission with the information it needs to reach a decision on whether or not to grant development consent?
Answer: No.
• The Statement does not provide any tangible criteria or Principles, against which the overall cumulative dis-benefit and/or risk associated with a proposed development can be weighed against the benefit.
This is of particular relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury, where significant dis-benefit/risk is apparent, and yet no specific or unique benefit of the site has been identified.
• The Statement does not set down any tangible criteria or Principles against which a justification not to pursue all potential mitigation measures can be assessed, eg a test of reasonable practicability, or gross-disproportion, with respect to the time, trouble and cost.
This is of particular relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury, where significant levels of mitigation might be required in respect of visual impact of cooling towers and likelihood of flooding.
• The Statement seemingly provides guidance to the IPC on the basis that each application is to be considered in isolation. Thus any dis-benefit accruing from overall development of the national energy infrastructure will not be minimised, and individual applications may be granted, or refused, on the basis of incomplete or partial information.
This shortcoming is of particular relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury, as there are several less sensitive/contentious sites elsewhere in the country that are not being actively pursued.
Question 4: Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide suitable direction to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on the need and urgency for new energy infrastructure?
Answer: Yes, but the question is irrelevant.
• Decisions regarding the nature and pace of the development of new energy infrastructure are being and will continue to be taken by the generating companies on the basis of their commercial objectives.
Question 5: Do the assessment principles in the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide suitable direction to the Infrastructure Planning Commission to inform its decision-making?
Answer: No
• See the answer given to Question 2.
• Most of the direction/guidance given in relation to any ‘assessment princples’ is of a general, subjective, and qualitative nature, which leaves considerable scope for interpretation and judgement by the IPC. No guidance is given on how to consider the cumulative dis-benefit of any proposal, or on the weighting that should be given to each aspect.
• There is seemingly no requirement for the IPC to consider whether development of an alternative site would be in the public interest, or to seek Independent Specialist advice on impacts associated with the Discretionary criteria of the SSA.
Question 7: Do you have any comments on any aspect of the draft Overarching Energy Policy Statement not covered by previous questions?
Answer: Yes
• The Overarching Energy Policy Statement does not include any requirement to minimize, as far as reasonably practicable, the overall harm/cost associated with measures taken to secure reliable energy supplies for the country into the future. Decisions regarding the location, scale, scope and nature of individual energy infrastructure developments can therefore seemingly be made on the basis of arbitrary or commercial considerations, rather than on what is in the best interests of those affected by those developments.
This issue is of particularly relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury, which is being pursued in the absence of any visible consideration of alternative options (renewable of otherwise) that would provide secure electricity supplies.
Question 16: Do you think that the Government should formally approve (‘designate’) the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement?
Answer: No
• The Statement does not provide a clear strategy against which potential development of the collection of ten sites identified within the document can be assessed. The declaration that all ten sites are necessary is not consistent with the projected requirements for future generating capacity as set down in EN-1. The total requirement for all forms on non-renewable capacity has been estimated to be 25 GW; ten nuclear sites alone could generate up to 33 GW.
• The Statement does not include any requirement for the programme of additional nuclear capacity to be developed on the basis of minimum harm. The sites now being actively considered for development have been chosen by the generating companies, and reflect their commercial interests. A National Policy Statement produced by the DECC should be formulated such that priority is given to the interests of British public, rather than the profits of the generating companies.
Question 17: Does the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement provide the Infrastructure Planning Commission with the information it needs to reach a decision on whether or not to grant development consent?
Answer: No
• See responses to Question 2
• No guidance is given regarding the need to consider the relative merits of the ten identified sites. With typical output per site of 3.3 GW, and a number of practical constraints on the number of sites that can be developed at one time, those sites that attract the least dis-benefit should be developed in the first instance.
There are very significant dis-benefits associated with development of the site at Oldbury, and yet this site has been chosen for potential early development, ahead of sites at Hartlepool, Sellafield, Heysham, Bradwell, Braystones and Kirksanton.
Question 18: Does the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement provide suitable direction to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on the need and urgency for new nuclear power stations?
Answer: Not in a manner that allows proper consideration of specific applications.
• See answer to Question 4.
• The Statement does not allow any meaningful assessment to be made of the importance or significance of proposed development at any particular site. No information or guidance is given with regard to the constraints or otherwise arising from present or future capacity of the grid. There are this no arguments or evidence to support the development of particular sites and not others.
This aspect is of particular relevance to the proposed development at Oldbury. The assessment of future grid requirements set down in EN-1 predicts an additional 3.3 GW of nuclear capacity from the South West, supplying load in the Midlands. The new plant at Hinkley Point could provide this capacity on its own, and planning for that development is already well advanced. On what basis therefore should development at Oldbury be pursued when there are other sites around the country that are far more suitable and which are not being actively developed?
Question 20: Does the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement appropriately cover the impacts of new nuclear power stations and potential options to mitigate those impacts?
Answer: Not in any meaningful way.
• See the answer to Question 2.
• The adoption of hyperbolic cooling towers at Oldbury would constitute a massive impact on the local environment. The adoption of other types of tower would introduce an unacceptable level of noise pollution, and have commercial dis-benefits for the operator. The Statement provides no methodology for assessing the balance of these arguments, and provides no Principles by which a decision can be made.
• Development at Oldbury will require major traffic/infrastructure developments and will pose potential threats of increased likelihood of flooding. Although numerous guidance documents are identified within the NPS, no methodology is set down that allows the inevitable unavoidable dis-benefit of such development to be weighed against the (unique?) benefits of this site.
• The NPS does not tackle the very significant issue of the obvious requirement to up-grade existing transmission lines and or provide additional transmission lines to connect to the grid.
Question 21: Do you agree with the Government’s preliminary conclusion on the potential suitability of sites nominated into the Strategic Siting Assessment, as set out below?
(h) Oldbury
Answer: No. Although we are not in a position to provide informed technical comment on the majority of SSA criteria, it is self-evident that the construction of even a single reactor at Oldbury would challenge the acceptance standards in a number of crucial areas. Taken together, the cumulative potential dis-benefit associated with the development of this site is considerable. Of particular concern are:-
D1: Flooding, storm surge and tsunami.
• The site does not pass either The Sequential Test or The Exception Test for flood risk, as set out in EN-1 when consideration is given to the availability of other around the country. The proposal to site a nuclear power station in Flood Zone 3 can be justified only on the basis that no alternative sites are available to provide essential power generation for the country. This is clearly not the position (there are several other sites around the country that are not being actively developed), and no arguments or evidence is presented in any NPS to suggest that this will ever be the case.
• Whilst technical assessments of flooding risk and the provision of appropriate flood protection will need to be completed in order to secure the Nuclear Site License from NII, the proposal to store radioactive waste on such a high-risk site for up to 160 years raises a fundamental issue. The approved design for Oldbury will need to be shown to be adequate for the lifetime of the plant, ie 160 years. Paragraph 121 of the NII document ‘Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Facilities (2006) states:- “If the external hazards over which the dutyholder has no control are judged to be too great to be accommodated by the design of the plant, the use of a site may be precluded for its proposed purpose.” Although the flood risk assessments will attempt to take account of climate change effects, it is already apparent that existing climate change models cannot provide reliable predictions over such timescales, and thus the hazard must be judged to be effectively too great to be accommodated by the design.
• Notwithstanding the possibility of being able to make an acceptable deterministic case with respect to the flooding hazard, development of a nuclear site in a high flood-risk area, when other sites are available but not being developed, is contrary to the fundamental ALARP principle on which all safety cases for nuclear plant are founded. We would expect NII to review the Site License application on this basis.
• It is apparent that protection/mitigation of flood risk at this site will require the construction of very significant civil works and the movement of vast amounts of materials. There is no justification for the adoption of such extreme measures when consideration is taken of the fact that Oldbury is by no means an ‘essential’ site for development.
D8: Areas of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value.
• Given the topographic and scenic qualities of the Severn Vale, the adoption of cooling towers of any significant height would be totally unacceptable. The adoption of forced draught or hybrid towers could present unacceptable noise pollution to the local area.
• The roads and infrastructure of the local area would require very significant development to support construction, effectively breaking up what is currently a quiet rural environment.
• The obvious requirement to either up-grade existing transmission lines, or construct additional ones, is likely to result in major visual impact. This aspect is not given any prominence in the SSA. We would expect details of all proposed transmission lines to be presented in the first phase of consultation.
Matthew Riddles to Residents of The Severn Vale
Power Station New Build at Shepperdine,
Oldbury-on-Severn - February 2010 Update
Dear Local Resident,
I am writing to you today with an update about the current situation regarding a possible new nuclear power station at Shepperdine. This update includes an important deadline of Monday 22nd February which is when the government’s current consultation on the suitability of the site ends.
My concerns so far about the suitability of the Shepperdine site are:
The cooling towers – they could be as high as 200 metres and it is the only one of the 10 sites that needs cooling towers. All the rest are next to deep water, which will be used for cooling
Flood risk to the site and the wider area if the site is made flood proof. It is noted that apart from Bradwell and Hartlepool, none of the other sites are wholly within Flood Zone 3. However, Oldbury appears to be the only listed site where the Environment Agency has outstanding concerns.
Transport during construction on our local roads
Thousands of workers coming to the area
The government’s current consultation is about the suitability of the Shepperdine site. It is important that as many responses as possible are sent by local people, expressing their views, before Monday 22nd February 2010.
You can do this by either:
going on the web site and answering the questions (you do not have to answer all the questions – the most important one for us is Question 21 h). http://data.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/documents/condoc.pdf
write to the address below with your concerns before Monday 22nd February 2010.
Robin Clarke
OPM
252b Gray’s Inn Road
London
WC1X 8XG
I would also like to update you on what South Gloucestershire Council and I have been doing on this important issue:
Response to the Government Draft Policy - South Gloucestershire Council has currently devoted considerable resources to producing its response to the government’s draft policy. I have attended two meetings where it was discussed and ensured that it includes residents’ concerns. The council’s response can be found at http://www.southglos.gov.uk/_Resources/Publications/PTE/10/0200/PTE-10-0028
Local Government Association (LGA) meeting in London – I represented South Gloucestershire Council at a meeting of all the councils that potentially have new build nuclear power stations. We discussed common issues and I also raised specific issues about Oldbury. The LGA and the Planning Officers Society will be making a joint response to the government’s latest consultation ending on 22nd February, both in general terms and also on site-specific issues. I will be ensuring that the issues with the Oldbury site are well documented within their response.
Scoping Report – South Gloucestershire sent back its response to Horizon's Scoping Report, in late December. The response was sent to both Horizon and the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which is the new guango created by the government that has the final say on new power stations.
Oldbury Parish Council meeting with Senior South Gloucestershire Council Officers - I organised this meeting so that local residents’ views and issues of common concern could be discussed. It also helped us to understand time scales and the detail of the various consultations.
Meetings with Sedgemoor District Council – they have the proposed new Hinkley Power Station in their area and are about a year ahead of us in the process. These meetings have proved very useful in understanding the planning process and common concerns.
Finland visit – a fellow resident and I organised a short trip to Finland to see the impact that the construction of a new nuclear power station is having on the local community. The visit was paid for out of our own pockets and proved invaluable in terms of helping us to understand what the main construction issues could be in our area.
I will keep you updated. Please contact me on this or any other issue.
Best Wishes,
Matthew
Oldbury-on-Severn - February 2010 Update
Dear Local Resident,
I am writing to you today with an update about the current situation regarding a possible new nuclear power station at Shepperdine. This update includes an important deadline of Monday 22nd February which is when the government’s current consultation on the suitability of the site ends.
My concerns so far about the suitability of the Shepperdine site are:
The cooling towers – they could be as high as 200 metres and it is the only one of the 10 sites that needs cooling towers. All the rest are next to deep water, which will be used for cooling
Flood risk to the site and the wider area if the site is made flood proof. It is noted that apart from Bradwell and Hartlepool, none of the other sites are wholly within Flood Zone 3. However, Oldbury appears to be the only listed site where the Environment Agency has outstanding concerns.
Transport during construction on our local roads
Thousands of workers coming to the area
The government’s current consultation is about the suitability of the Shepperdine site. It is important that as many responses as possible are sent by local people, expressing their views, before Monday 22nd February 2010.
You can do this by either:
going on the web site and answering the questions (you do not have to answer all the questions – the most important one for us is Question 21 h). http://data.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/documents/condoc.pdf
write to the address below with your concerns before Monday 22nd February 2010.
Robin Clarke
OPM
252b Gray’s Inn Road
London
WC1X 8XG
I would also like to update you on what South Gloucestershire Council and I have been doing on this important issue:
Response to the Government Draft Policy - South Gloucestershire Council has currently devoted considerable resources to producing its response to the government’s draft policy. I have attended two meetings where it was discussed and ensured that it includes residents’ concerns. The council’s response can be found at http://www.southglos.gov.uk/_Resources/Publications/PTE/10/0200/PTE-10-0028
Local Government Association (LGA) meeting in London – I represented South Gloucestershire Council at a meeting of all the councils that potentially have new build nuclear power stations. We discussed common issues and I also raised specific issues about Oldbury. The LGA and the Planning Officers Society will be making a joint response to the government’s latest consultation ending on 22nd February, both in general terms and also on site-specific issues. I will be ensuring that the issues with the Oldbury site are well documented within their response.
Scoping Report – South Gloucestershire sent back its response to Horizon's Scoping Report, in late December. The response was sent to both Horizon and the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which is the new guango created by the government that has the final say on new power stations.
Oldbury Parish Council meeting with Senior South Gloucestershire Council Officers - I organised this meeting so that local residents’ views and issues of common concern could be discussed. It also helped us to understand time scales and the detail of the various consultations.
Meetings with Sedgemoor District Council – they have the proposed new Hinkley Power Station in their area and are about a year ahead of us in the process. These meetings have proved very useful in understanding the planning process and common concerns.
Finland visit – a fellow resident and I organised a short trip to Finland to see the impact that the construction of a new nuclear power station is having on the local community. The visit was paid for out of our own pockets and proved invaluable in terms of helping us to understand what the main construction issues could be in our area.
I will keep you updated. Please contact me on this or any other issue.
Best Wishes,
Matthew
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
SANEs Submission to DECC
The DECC draft National Policy Statement for Energy and its nomination of a new nuclear power station at Shepperdine, near Oldbury-on- Severn, South Gloucestershire
Response from Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy
Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy is a newly formed group of approximately 100 local residents living close to the nominated site referred to in the DECC documentation as ‘Oldbury’ but is infact within the village of Shepperdine to the north of Oldbury-on-Severn. Our group is growing in numbers and includes residents from the villages of Shepperdine itself, Oldbury, Rockhampton, Nupdown, Falfield and the nearby town of Thornbury.
Our group has been formed as a direct consequence of this consultation; its chairman is Reg Illingworth to whom all correspondance should be addressed (address supplied to DECC seperately for confidentiality purposes).
Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy strongly objects to the DECC public consultation process, the draft Nuclear National Policy Statements for Energy (NPS) in general and the specific nomination of Shepperdine and this statement sets out our reasons.
A. Consultation Process
The consultation process has presented this community with some considerable difficulties in responding effectively for the following reasons:
1. The DECC NPS documentation runs to some 1600 pages and as a result is totally impossible for the general public to digest and respond to. This community has had absolutely no assistance with this from either its local council or from the DECC. As a result the whole process has totally overwhelmed those that have tried to respond and this has led to a total lack of public engagement. Many of our members feel that this has been done deliberately to avoid public participation and the DECC do not want to hear what the local community has to say.
2. The one local DECC exhibition and public meeting was held only 2 weeks before the consultation deadline of the 22nd February and far too late to assist local people in understanding and responding.
3. To make matters worse, Eon (now promoting this scheme under the name of Horizon Nuclear Power) ran their own massive consultation at the same time as the DECC consultation and thus many local people have directed their concerns to either Eon or the IPC. Running the two consultation processes side by side has distracted this community from this important DECC consultation and has caused considerable local confusion. It is difficult enough for local people to understand what the NPS is for, its purpose in the planning process and the brand new proposed IPC process in relation to the planning consent for these developments. To then try and understand how the NPS will affect them from a 1600 page document and respond accordingly is well beyond the public. If you then add to that the launching of another consultation by Horizon no reasonable individual had a chance of understanding this consultation.
4. A Community consultation on the end state of the soon to be decommisioned power station at Oldbury was undertaken in 2007. This survey established that the majority of local people did not want a new nuclear power station built here and that they wanted the site returned to its natural state. The local community was therefore shocked to learn from this consultation that the government has chosen to ignore the consensus view. Many people felt that this, together with the extremely overwhelming nature of the DECC documentation, was a clear indication that the government was not interested in the views of this community.
5. The DECC has not undertaken any publicity over this consultation beyond the villages immediately adjacent to this site and the town of Thornbury. There have been no exhibitions or meetings held by DECC across the river in the towns of Chepstow and Lydney which are very close to and look out over the proposed site. Nor has there been any exhibition/meeting held in the city of Bristol which is only approx 10 miles from the site.
6. We also comment that the exhibition and meeting held in Thornbury has been far too late for us to make any contribution to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee for Energy and Climate Change (ECCC), unlike many of the other nominated sites. We insist that DECC draw this fact and our views in this statement to the attention of all of the ECCC members. It is vital that the ECCC are given proper time to consider our views before it reports on the outcome of its scrutiny.
In summary we feel that this consultation has been fundamentally flawed and has not given this community a fair chance to express its views either to the DECC or the ECCC.
B. General Objections to the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement
1. Site Selection Criteria The NPS refers to ‘semi-urban’ criteria which must be met in the DECC selection process. DECC have since advised, at local public meetings, that it is a requirement of the safety regulators that nuclear power stations are built away from centres of population for safety reasons. We therefore question the semi urban criteria altogether because semi-urban is what it is ie in populated areas! See also our specific concerns on this in relation to the Shepperdine site.
2. Deployability to meet the ‘energy gap’ Given experiences in other countries we maintain that Nuclear power stations are impossible to construct before the predicted energy gap between 2015 and 2020. Claims made by the promoters of the various nominated sites are considered over-optimistic considering the building performance of these new generation nuclear power plants elsewhere in the world including at Olkiluoto and Flamanville which are three and two years behind schedule respectively and badly over budget.
3. Nuclear power will not help combat climate change. The Sustainable Development Commission has already argued against nuclear power saying it would reduce carbon emissions by just four percent by 2025 and that renewables could be brought on more quickly. Furthemore as nuclear now produces a mere 13% of UK electricity (DECC 2008 figures) and with UK targets to achieve 34% renewable electricity by 2020, renewables and energy conservation are a much better prospect.
4. Unacceptable risks from nuclear power:
• Emergency plans are currently and will continue to be unable to protect the public from a major release of radiation caused by an accident or terrorism. This is made worse by choosing to locate these new power stations in semi-urban areas.
• The reactors proposed for these new generation power stations will use intensive ‘high burn-up fuel’ increasing the risk of high quantities of radiation in a serious accident.
• The highly toxic waste is so hot and radioactive it is believed to take 160 years to cool down and will need to be stored for up to 160 years, long after the power stations have ceased generating electricity, creating additional local hazards. As no suitable location has been found for its eventual ‘disposal’ and none will exist for at least many decades, if at all. The adjacent local communities will be left with this toxic waste legacy. Furthermore the draft NPS removes our fundamental right to have our say on this matter within the planning process. The NPS directs the IPC that it need not consider this issue further and this is totally unacceptable.
• Government policy, quite rightly, requires that any community which might eventually host a long term deep geological store for the storage of the highly toxic waste produced by these new nuclear plants do so on a completely voluntary basis. We feel that the communities now being required to host this waste until such facility exists should also be given the same respect. By nominating Shepperdine in the NPS and removing the consideration of this issue within the planning process, the government is denying this community of its rights in this matter and expecting it to host this waste on an involuntary basis!
• Health risks are associated with nuclear power stations. In particular we highlight the link to childhood leukaemias as found in many recent studies including the Green Audit 2001: “Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Oldbury Nuclear Power Station in Gloucestershire 1995-1999". This found a childhood leukaemia cluster in Chepstow a statistically significant cluster similar in intensity to the notorious Seascale cluster. Chepstow is just down stream from the existing Oldbury power station.
Furthermore, the recent KiKK German Government study 2008 found more than double childhood leukaemias near every nuclear power station – effect as far as 50 kilometres.
It should be noted that the NPS seeks to prevent the IPC from considering the health risks further in the planning process and we object to this specific point as it will prevent this community, who will be subjected to these risks for many generations to come, from having any further say in this matter.
C. Objections to the Nomination of Shepperdine, nr Oldbury
The southern shore of the Severn Estuary already has the highest concentration of nuclear power stations in the UK, with Hinkley Point, Oldbury and Berkeley (decommissioned 15 years ago but still standing).
The communities around the Vale of Severn have become accustomed to the existing power stations.
However, with Oldbury now approaching the end of its lifetime, it is clear that many of the key arguments used to justify its location here over 40 years ago are no longer valid. Moreover, the proposal created by the NPS will result in the construction of significantly larger new power station (at least 4 times the site area of the existing power station) at Shepperdine, some 2.5 km from Oldbury and this raises several important new concerns:
1. Ecological damage: loss of fragile habitats that are valued and protected at national and international levels.
2. Visual impact across a wide area of the Severn Basin and affecting two separate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Local climatic changes created by the cooling towers needed for this new generation of power station in this particular location affecting the local populations down wind of the site.
4. Flooding risk, affecting the site itself and potentially collateral flooding of neighbouring areas due to the construction of flood defences to protect the new station.
5. Unsuitability of the site for the long-term storage of large amounts of nuclear waste.
6. Harm to the local neighbourhood during construction of the new station, especially as this will overlap with the significant works involved in the decommissioning of Oldbury.
7. Potential conflicts with the UK's long-term energy strategy, namely interference with plans for the Seven Barrage.
8. Proximity to large populations including the city of Bristol, the towns of Thornbury, Chepstow and Lydney all of which have grown significantly since the old power station was constructed.
9. Upgrading of National Grid infrastructure which will involve the complete replacement of the national grid power lines serving the existing station for several miles.
10. A known history of subsidence problems which has led to considerable and serious problems at the existing power station site.
We do not consider that the measures of mitigation suggested in the NPS will adequately address these problems. For these reasons, the Shepperdine site is totally unsuitable and it is inappropriate for a new power station of the scale proposed by the NPS to be situated at Shepperdine. We therefore object to the nomination of Shepperdine within the NPS and insist that it is removed before designation.
Specific concerns
1. Ecological damage
The southern shore of the Severn Estuary from the Old Severn Bridge to Sharpness is already spoiled by the existing nuclear power stations at Oldbury (whose shell will remain for many years after decommissioning) and Berkeley, where the superstructure still stands 15 years after shutdown. Building a new station at Shepperdine would industrialise a continuous 5-km stretch of the shoreline –and constitute the highest density of nuclear power stations in the UK and perhaps in the world.
This part of the Severn Estuary includes an important suite of habitats that are recognised nationally and internationally as in need of protection. Shepperdine lies within 5 km of three UK-designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Severn Estuary, Upper Severn Estuary and Lower River Wye). At international level, the Severn Estuary is designated a Special Area of Conservation, strictly protected under the EC Habitats Directive; a Special Protection Area; and a Wetland (Ramsar) Area.
The mitigation measures suggested in the NPS and proposed by Horizon are simply the recreation of the lost habitats. This is woefully inadequate. The protected areas are already fragile and under threat and will be irreparably damaged by construction of the station and associated flood defences; by the deep-water dock needed to bring in large reactor components; and further inland, by alterations to the road network and its associated flood protection.
None of the UK or EC environmental protection designations existed 45 years ago, when the proposal for the Oldbury power station was considered and approved. None of the 9 other sites currently under consideration has a comparable concentration of protected environments that would be damaged by the construction of a new power station.
2. Visual impact
The existing Oldbury power station is visible across a wide area of the Severn Estuary and Basin, Forest of Dean and Cotswold Escarpment. The station proposed for Shepperdine would generate three times more power than Oldbury. The reactor building itself would be bigger and, most significantly, there would have to be 3 or 4 cooling towers, because the station's demand would outstrip the capacity of water from the river to cool the reactor safely and the resultant output would be too hot so that the consequential plume into the river would be too harmful.
The cooling towers proposed would be either 70 m or 200 m high, depending on whether cooling was actively assisted (with internal fans) or passive.
In either case, the new station would be an eyesore, significantly more obtrusive than the Oldbury and Berkeley stations which already blight this stretch of the Estuary and the Severn Way.
The 70m high fan assisted towers will be significantly less efficient and therefore render this site far less sustainable than other sites not requiring cooling towers. So much so that it is considered that this option will prove non-sustainable as is inferred in the NPS statement regarding the exclusion of the Owsten Ferry site.
We also maintain that the impact of noise generated by these fans on the residents living in Shepperdine and other villages close by will be unacceptable.
Furthermore, the 200m high gravity towers would be the highest structure outside the city of London in the UK, twice the height of the cooling towers constructed at Didcot power station and against its backdrop they will be higher than the pylons of the Old Severn Bridge and the hills of the Forest of Dean and the Cotswold Escarpment. These towers and the associated plumes of steam would be visible for up to 50 miles, spoiling the view across the local area as well as into two separate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Wye Valley and Cotswolds). Both these areas are significant internationally appreciated tourist attractions.
The mitigation measures suggested in the NPS and proposed by Horizon consist merely of ground-level landscaping and tree planting, and changing the alignment and/or colour of the cooling towers. The DECC concedes that "not all effects will be mitigated". This is a complete under-statement and we suggest that no measures can possibly mitigate the damage done by these hugely dominant structures.
This is a beautiful area that has already been damaged by the two existing stations. The Shepperdine station would greatly expand the area spoiled in this way and in the words of one local resident “will make the existing power station look like a country cottage by comparison”.
Significantly, Shepperdine is the only one of the 10 sites that cannot be safely cooled by seawater and that therefore requires cooling towers. It should also be noted that the DECC has ruled out other sites, including Owsten Ferry, for this reason and we are at a loss to understand why Shepperdine remains on the list of nominated sites.
3. Local climatic changes
The steam plumes from the cooling towers (at whichever height) will create changes to the local climate over the areas down wind of the towers depositing contaminated drizzle/rain on the communities in these locations and this is totally unacceptable to the local residents affected. This matter is not even referred to in the NPS and yet it will be of huge significance to the local communities and wildlife affected by this.
We suggest that the DECC must undertake an impact assessment on this issue alone before the government is able to make their decision to nominate Shepperdine in the designated NPS.
4. Flooding risk
Shepperdine is within a highest risk (category 3) of flood zone. This assessment relates only to tidal flooding from the Severn – where the funnel shape of the Estuary would also concentrate the effects of exceptional water rises such as storm surges or a tsunami. This is the only one of the sites to carry clear evidence of flood damage, from the early 1600s, from the effects of a catastrophic tsunami flooding.
The inland region, including Oldbury, the Naite and Rockhampton, also suffers frequent flooding, but from water running off the hills to the east rather than from the river.
DECC have assessed flood defences as theoretically capable of protecting the station itself and its access routes. However, the environmental and visual impact of planned measures has not been described by the NPS or Horizon in any detail.
Crucially, the risk of collateral flooding – from flood defences at the site preventing effective drainage of surface water further inland – has not been addressed at all.
The risk of flooding of the station itself, and of adjacent communities, is substantially higher than at any of the other nine sites. We do not regard the NPS or Horizon's plans for mitigation as adequate. Flood risk was a factor that caused other potential sites to be excluded from further consideration, and we feel that this should preclude the choice of Shepperdine as an appropriate site.
We also draw attention to the fact that the existing power station was cut off by flooding in 2004 and was inaccessible to staff. This clearly represents a security and/or evacuation hazard, emergency vehicles would have been stranded and out of reach of the plant!
5. Highly toxic nuclear waste storage
In the continuing absence of a geologically suitable site within a ‘volunteer’ community in the UK to host the large-scale long term storage of the highly toxic nuclear waste produced by these new generation reactors, this waste will have to be kept on-site at each of the new power stations. This waste will be substantially more active and therefore more hazardous than that produced by the existing plant at Oldbury.
The NPS requires that the developers provide an above ground storage facility to host this waste adjacent to this plant. Waste could therefore have to be stored above ground on site for up to 150 years.
We are deeply concerned that these facilities would further increase the environmental and visual damage inflicted by the reactor and cooling towers, and would also add a new safety hazard and makes the flooding implications referred to above even more serious.
The NPS seeks to remove this community’s right to have any further say on the question of storage of this highly toxic waste at Shepperdine by directing the IPC that it need not consider this matter in determining the planning consent. By doing this the DECC is imposing this legacy upon us and this is completely unacceptable.
6. Harm done to the local neighbourhood
Damage would inevitably be done to the local area during construction of the new station by traffic, road-widening, temporary accommodation for 5000 largely migrant construction workers, and so on. We accept that this is inevitable at each site ultimately chosen. However its impact in this area should not be under-estimated.
At Shepperdine, this would impact most on an attractive part of the Vale of Berkeley and would damage or destroy communities such as Shepperdine itself, Nupdown, Hill and Rockhampton.
Moreover, disruption and damage would be greater still if a new station were built at Shepperdine at the same time as the Oldbury station is being decommissioned – a process due to start in 2011 and likely to last 12 years.
The area already suffers from traffic congestion both in normal rush hours and also whenever there is an accident on and around the M5/M4 inter- change; an all too frequent occurrence these days. If you add to this the congestion created by the construction traffic together with the de-commissioning of the old power station this area will bear a huge toll
7. Potential conflict with the Severn Barrage
It has not been determined whether the construction of a new power station at Shepperdine could interfere with the proposal to build a Severn Barrage, or vice versa. However, the DECC acknowledges that there could well be adverse environmental and other impacts.
Shepperdine and Hinkley are the only two of the planned power stations that could potentially interfere with other strands of the UK's long-term energy policy, and particularly its use of sustainable natural sources of power.
It is illogical to consider detailed plans for Shepperdine without knowing whether or not a Severn Barrage will go ahead or the details/location of such a barrage. To do so could very well pre-determine the outcome of this hugely important renewable scheme and is definitely not in the long term interests of this country.
8. Proximity to large populations
The proposed site will lie very close to some significant populations including Thornbury (less than 5 miles population circa 12,500), the city of Bristol (approx 10 miles population circa 450,000) and the towns across the river of Chepstow and Lydney, both of which are less than 5 miles from this site.
Given the risks identified earlier (and the DECC admission that these power stations should not be close to large populations for safety reasons) we consider that this site is too close to these communities to be acceptable and therefore it is an unsuitable location for these new generation of nuclear power stations.
As well as the safety risks, properties in the area have already been blighted by the draft Nuclear NPS having included Shepperdine in their list of 10 suitable sites. Many people are unable to sell their homes and will not be able to for many years if this site remains in the NPS when it is designated. Home owners in the area have already suffered enough damage due to the current economic recession and do not now need this blight inflicted upon them.
As well as the many villages close by, which will be devastated by the over-bearing nature of this site both during and after the construction, the nomination of Shepperdine will affect sales of homes for miles around the location including towns like Thornbury, Chepstow and Lydney all of which have many homes with views looking over the site. The Secretary of State should expect a considerable number of claims with respect to this blight made even worse by the fact that this site is located close to several towns.
9. Upgrading of National Grid infrastructure
The National Grid power lines serving the existing power station are of inadequate capacity to serve the proposed capacity for the new power station at Shepperdine. Therefore, not only will new power lines be needed to connect the new station up to the existing grid, but the power lines running out from Oldbury for several miles will need to be replaced. This will involve replacing of the cables and the pylons throughout these lengths.
These works will have a significant impact on the countryside and will add to the huge disruption to this area. Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the residents living along these power line routes have yet been consulted on this matter, despite the fact that the increased capacity will have a serious impact on their health.
10. Known history of subsidence in this area
It is understood that the recent site investigations have revealed that this site lies on deep layers of alluvium with hard clay beneath. This type of bedrock is vulnerable to subsidence. It is also the same sort of ground conditions as exist beneath the existing power station at Oldbury which has suffered from a history of problems resulting from subsidence. This has led to reactor shut downs etc.
It makes no sense whatsover to construct a new larger nuclear power station on the same type of ground as has already proven to be problematic in this respect.
Our concerns are compounded by the fact that a local resident who witnessed recent site investigation drilling being undertaken by Horizon and reports that the drilling had gone down to a depth of over 200 meters and had still not found substantial rock for foundations. We therefore believe that this site has serious ground condition difficulties and suggest that the DECC review the site investigation report before continuing with this nomination.
Conclusions
As we have outlined above we believe that DECC need to re-consider their NPS for energy as it is not fit for purpose in many different ways.
Furthermore for the reasons given above, Shepperdine is an obviously unsuitable site for a new generation nuclear power station.
We believe that the decision to include Shepperdine was weighted by the pre-existing infrastructure at Oldbury (an infrastructure that we now know has to be completely replaced in any case); the fact that the existing Oldbury power station has long been tolerated by the local population; and in the words of the DECC, "the lack of alternatives."
However, for reasons of environmental protection, safety and sustainability, we argue that this setting is now no longer appropriate for a new station especially along the scale of these new generation power stations now proposed by the promoters.
We strongly urge the Government to remove Shepperdine from the list of nominated sites within the NPS and to explore other options for making good the shortfall. We believe this should be met with truly renewable energy which does not rely on the limited supply of uranium from other countries; one which is already showing signs of drying up and the mining and transportation of which is extremely carbon intensive.
This area offers diverse opportunities to harness natural energy from its rich coastal and tidal powers. We feel that the government should make much more effort in focussing on the natural power generation reserves of this area and stop allowing nuclear energy to distract the energy markets attention in this region fr
Response from Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy
Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy is a newly formed group of approximately 100 local residents living close to the nominated site referred to in the DECC documentation as ‘Oldbury’ but is infact within the village of Shepperdine to the north of Oldbury-on-Severn. Our group is growing in numbers and includes residents from the villages of Shepperdine itself, Oldbury, Rockhampton, Nupdown, Falfield and the nearby town of Thornbury.
Our group has been formed as a direct consequence of this consultation; its chairman is Reg Illingworth to whom all correspondance should be addressed (address supplied to DECC seperately for confidentiality purposes).
Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy strongly objects to the DECC public consultation process, the draft Nuclear National Policy Statements for Energy (NPS) in general and the specific nomination of Shepperdine and this statement sets out our reasons.
A. Consultation Process
The consultation process has presented this community with some considerable difficulties in responding effectively for the following reasons:
1. The DECC NPS documentation runs to some 1600 pages and as a result is totally impossible for the general public to digest and respond to. This community has had absolutely no assistance with this from either its local council or from the DECC. As a result the whole process has totally overwhelmed those that have tried to respond and this has led to a total lack of public engagement. Many of our members feel that this has been done deliberately to avoid public participation and the DECC do not want to hear what the local community has to say.
2. The one local DECC exhibition and public meeting was held only 2 weeks before the consultation deadline of the 22nd February and far too late to assist local people in understanding and responding.
3. To make matters worse, Eon (now promoting this scheme under the name of Horizon Nuclear Power) ran their own massive consultation at the same time as the DECC consultation and thus many local people have directed their concerns to either Eon or the IPC. Running the two consultation processes side by side has distracted this community from this important DECC consultation and has caused considerable local confusion. It is difficult enough for local people to understand what the NPS is for, its purpose in the planning process and the brand new proposed IPC process in relation to the planning consent for these developments. To then try and understand how the NPS will affect them from a 1600 page document and respond accordingly is well beyond the public. If you then add to that the launching of another consultation by Horizon no reasonable individual had a chance of understanding this consultation.
4. A Community consultation on the end state of the soon to be decommisioned power station at Oldbury was undertaken in 2007. This survey established that the majority of local people did not want a new nuclear power station built here and that they wanted the site returned to its natural state. The local community was therefore shocked to learn from this consultation that the government has chosen to ignore the consensus view. Many people felt that this, together with the extremely overwhelming nature of the DECC documentation, was a clear indication that the government was not interested in the views of this community.
5. The DECC has not undertaken any publicity over this consultation beyond the villages immediately adjacent to this site and the town of Thornbury. There have been no exhibitions or meetings held by DECC across the river in the towns of Chepstow and Lydney which are very close to and look out over the proposed site. Nor has there been any exhibition/meeting held in the city of Bristol which is only approx 10 miles from the site.
6. We also comment that the exhibition and meeting held in Thornbury has been far too late for us to make any contribution to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee for Energy and Climate Change (ECCC), unlike many of the other nominated sites. We insist that DECC draw this fact and our views in this statement to the attention of all of the ECCC members. It is vital that the ECCC are given proper time to consider our views before it reports on the outcome of its scrutiny.
In summary we feel that this consultation has been fundamentally flawed and has not given this community a fair chance to express its views either to the DECC or the ECCC.
B. General Objections to the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement
1. Site Selection Criteria The NPS refers to ‘semi-urban’ criteria which must be met in the DECC selection process. DECC have since advised, at local public meetings, that it is a requirement of the safety regulators that nuclear power stations are built away from centres of population for safety reasons. We therefore question the semi urban criteria altogether because semi-urban is what it is ie in populated areas! See also our specific concerns on this in relation to the Shepperdine site.
2. Deployability to meet the ‘energy gap’ Given experiences in other countries we maintain that Nuclear power stations are impossible to construct before the predicted energy gap between 2015 and 2020. Claims made by the promoters of the various nominated sites are considered over-optimistic considering the building performance of these new generation nuclear power plants elsewhere in the world including at Olkiluoto and Flamanville which are three and two years behind schedule respectively and badly over budget.
3. Nuclear power will not help combat climate change. The Sustainable Development Commission has already argued against nuclear power saying it would reduce carbon emissions by just four percent by 2025 and that renewables could be brought on more quickly. Furthemore as nuclear now produces a mere 13% of UK electricity (DECC 2008 figures) and with UK targets to achieve 34% renewable electricity by 2020, renewables and energy conservation are a much better prospect.
4. Unacceptable risks from nuclear power:
• Emergency plans are currently and will continue to be unable to protect the public from a major release of radiation caused by an accident or terrorism. This is made worse by choosing to locate these new power stations in semi-urban areas.
• The reactors proposed for these new generation power stations will use intensive ‘high burn-up fuel’ increasing the risk of high quantities of radiation in a serious accident.
• The highly toxic waste is so hot and radioactive it is believed to take 160 years to cool down and will need to be stored for up to 160 years, long after the power stations have ceased generating electricity, creating additional local hazards. As no suitable location has been found for its eventual ‘disposal’ and none will exist for at least many decades, if at all. The adjacent local communities will be left with this toxic waste legacy. Furthermore the draft NPS removes our fundamental right to have our say on this matter within the planning process. The NPS directs the IPC that it need not consider this issue further and this is totally unacceptable.
• Government policy, quite rightly, requires that any community which might eventually host a long term deep geological store for the storage of the highly toxic waste produced by these new nuclear plants do so on a completely voluntary basis. We feel that the communities now being required to host this waste until such facility exists should also be given the same respect. By nominating Shepperdine in the NPS and removing the consideration of this issue within the planning process, the government is denying this community of its rights in this matter and expecting it to host this waste on an involuntary basis!
• Health risks are associated with nuclear power stations. In particular we highlight the link to childhood leukaemias as found in many recent studies including the Green Audit 2001: “Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Oldbury Nuclear Power Station in Gloucestershire 1995-1999". This found a childhood leukaemia cluster in Chepstow a statistically significant cluster similar in intensity to the notorious Seascale cluster. Chepstow is just down stream from the existing Oldbury power station.
Furthermore, the recent KiKK German Government study 2008 found more than double childhood leukaemias near every nuclear power station – effect as far as 50 kilometres.
It should be noted that the NPS seeks to prevent the IPC from considering the health risks further in the planning process and we object to this specific point as it will prevent this community, who will be subjected to these risks for many generations to come, from having any further say in this matter.
C. Objections to the Nomination of Shepperdine, nr Oldbury
The southern shore of the Severn Estuary already has the highest concentration of nuclear power stations in the UK, with Hinkley Point, Oldbury and Berkeley (decommissioned 15 years ago but still standing).
The communities around the Vale of Severn have become accustomed to the existing power stations.
However, with Oldbury now approaching the end of its lifetime, it is clear that many of the key arguments used to justify its location here over 40 years ago are no longer valid. Moreover, the proposal created by the NPS will result in the construction of significantly larger new power station (at least 4 times the site area of the existing power station) at Shepperdine, some 2.5 km from Oldbury and this raises several important new concerns:
1. Ecological damage: loss of fragile habitats that are valued and protected at national and international levels.
2. Visual impact across a wide area of the Severn Basin and affecting two separate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Local climatic changes created by the cooling towers needed for this new generation of power station in this particular location affecting the local populations down wind of the site.
4. Flooding risk, affecting the site itself and potentially collateral flooding of neighbouring areas due to the construction of flood defences to protect the new station.
5. Unsuitability of the site for the long-term storage of large amounts of nuclear waste.
6. Harm to the local neighbourhood during construction of the new station, especially as this will overlap with the significant works involved in the decommissioning of Oldbury.
7. Potential conflicts with the UK's long-term energy strategy, namely interference with plans for the Seven Barrage.
8. Proximity to large populations including the city of Bristol, the towns of Thornbury, Chepstow and Lydney all of which have grown significantly since the old power station was constructed.
9. Upgrading of National Grid infrastructure which will involve the complete replacement of the national grid power lines serving the existing station for several miles.
10. A known history of subsidence problems which has led to considerable and serious problems at the existing power station site.
We do not consider that the measures of mitigation suggested in the NPS will adequately address these problems. For these reasons, the Shepperdine site is totally unsuitable and it is inappropriate for a new power station of the scale proposed by the NPS to be situated at Shepperdine. We therefore object to the nomination of Shepperdine within the NPS and insist that it is removed before designation.
Specific concerns
1. Ecological damage
The southern shore of the Severn Estuary from the Old Severn Bridge to Sharpness is already spoiled by the existing nuclear power stations at Oldbury (whose shell will remain for many years after decommissioning) and Berkeley, where the superstructure still stands 15 years after shutdown. Building a new station at Shepperdine would industrialise a continuous 5-km stretch of the shoreline –and constitute the highest density of nuclear power stations in the UK and perhaps in the world.
This part of the Severn Estuary includes an important suite of habitats that are recognised nationally and internationally as in need of protection. Shepperdine lies within 5 km of three UK-designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Severn Estuary, Upper Severn Estuary and Lower River Wye). At international level, the Severn Estuary is designated a Special Area of Conservation, strictly protected under the EC Habitats Directive; a Special Protection Area; and a Wetland (Ramsar) Area.
The mitigation measures suggested in the NPS and proposed by Horizon are simply the recreation of the lost habitats. This is woefully inadequate. The protected areas are already fragile and under threat and will be irreparably damaged by construction of the station and associated flood defences; by the deep-water dock needed to bring in large reactor components; and further inland, by alterations to the road network and its associated flood protection.
None of the UK or EC environmental protection designations existed 45 years ago, when the proposal for the Oldbury power station was considered and approved. None of the 9 other sites currently under consideration has a comparable concentration of protected environments that would be damaged by the construction of a new power station.
2. Visual impact
The existing Oldbury power station is visible across a wide area of the Severn Estuary and Basin, Forest of Dean and Cotswold Escarpment. The station proposed for Shepperdine would generate three times more power than Oldbury. The reactor building itself would be bigger and, most significantly, there would have to be 3 or 4 cooling towers, because the station's demand would outstrip the capacity of water from the river to cool the reactor safely and the resultant output would be too hot so that the consequential plume into the river would be too harmful.
The cooling towers proposed would be either 70 m or 200 m high, depending on whether cooling was actively assisted (with internal fans) or passive.
In either case, the new station would be an eyesore, significantly more obtrusive than the Oldbury and Berkeley stations which already blight this stretch of the Estuary and the Severn Way.
The 70m high fan assisted towers will be significantly less efficient and therefore render this site far less sustainable than other sites not requiring cooling towers. So much so that it is considered that this option will prove non-sustainable as is inferred in the NPS statement regarding the exclusion of the Owsten Ferry site.
We also maintain that the impact of noise generated by these fans on the residents living in Shepperdine and other villages close by will be unacceptable.
Furthermore, the 200m high gravity towers would be the highest structure outside the city of London in the UK, twice the height of the cooling towers constructed at Didcot power station and against its backdrop they will be higher than the pylons of the Old Severn Bridge and the hills of the Forest of Dean and the Cotswold Escarpment. These towers and the associated plumes of steam would be visible for up to 50 miles, spoiling the view across the local area as well as into two separate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Wye Valley and Cotswolds). Both these areas are significant internationally appreciated tourist attractions.
The mitigation measures suggested in the NPS and proposed by Horizon consist merely of ground-level landscaping and tree planting, and changing the alignment and/or colour of the cooling towers. The DECC concedes that "not all effects will be mitigated". This is a complete under-statement and we suggest that no measures can possibly mitigate the damage done by these hugely dominant structures.
This is a beautiful area that has already been damaged by the two existing stations. The Shepperdine station would greatly expand the area spoiled in this way and in the words of one local resident “will make the existing power station look like a country cottage by comparison”.
Significantly, Shepperdine is the only one of the 10 sites that cannot be safely cooled by seawater and that therefore requires cooling towers. It should also be noted that the DECC has ruled out other sites, including Owsten Ferry, for this reason and we are at a loss to understand why Shepperdine remains on the list of nominated sites.
3. Local climatic changes
The steam plumes from the cooling towers (at whichever height) will create changes to the local climate over the areas down wind of the towers depositing contaminated drizzle/rain on the communities in these locations and this is totally unacceptable to the local residents affected. This matter is not even referred to in the NPS and yet it will be of huge significance to the local communities and wildlife affected by this.
We suggest that the DECC must undertake an impact assessment on this issue alone before the government is able to make their decision to nominate Shepperdine in the designated NPS.
4. Flooding risk
Shepperdine is within a highest risk (category 3) of flood zone. This assessment relates only to tidal flooding from the Severn – where the funnel shape of the Estuary would also concentrate the effects of exceptional water rises such as storm surges or a tsunami. This is the only one of the sites to carry clear evidence of flood damage, from the early 1600s, from the effects of a catastrophic tsunami flooding.
The inland region, including Oldbury, the Naite and Rockhampton, also suffers frequent flooding, but from water running off the hills to the east rather than from the river.
DECC have assessed flood defences as theoretically capable of protecting the station itself and its access routes. However, the environmental and visual impact of planned measures has not been described by the NPS or Horizon in any detail.
Crucially, the risk of collateral flooding – from flood defences at the site preventing effective drainage of surface water further inland – has not been addressed at all.
The risk of flooding of the station itself, and of adjacent communities, is substantially higher than at any of the other nine sites. We do not regard the NPS or Horizon's plans for mitigation as adequate. Flood risk was a factor that caused other potential sites to be excluded from further consideration, and we feel that this should preclude the choice of Shepperdine as an appropriate site.
We also draw attention to the fact that the existing power station was cut off by flooding in 2004 and was inaccessible to staff. This clearly represents a security and/or evacuation hazard, emergency vehicles would have been stranded and out of reach of the plant!
5. Highly toxic nuclear waste storage
In the continuing absence of a geologically suitable site within a ‘volunteer’ community in the UK to host the large-scale long term storage of the highly toxic nuclear waste produced by these new generation reactors, this waste will have to be kept on-site at each of the new power stations. This waste will be substantially more active and therefore more hazardous than that produced by the existing plant at Oldbury.
The NPS requires that the developers provide an above ground storage facility to host this waste adjacent to this plant. Waste could therefore have to be stored above ground on site for up to 150 years.
We are deeply concerned that these facilities would further increase the environmental and visual damage inflicted by the reactor and cooling towers, and would also add a new safety hazard and makes the flooding implications referred to above even more serious.
The NPS seeks to remove this community’s right to have any further say on the question of storage of this highly toxic waste at Shepperdine by directing the IPC that it need not consider this matter in determining the planning consent. By doing this the DECC is imposing this legacy upon us and this is completely unacceptable.
6. Harm done to the local neighbourhood
Damage would inevitably be done to the local area during construction of the new station by traffic, road-widening, temporary accommodation for 5000 largely migrant construction workers, and so on. We accept that this is inevitable at each site ultimately chosen. However its impact in this area should not be under-estimated.
At Shepperdine, this would impact most on an attractive part of the Vale of Berkeley and would damage or destroy communities such as Shepperdine itself, Nupdown, Hill and Rockhampton.
Moreover, disruption and damage would be greater still if a new station were built at Shepperdine at the same time as the Oldbury station is being decommissioned – a process due to start in 2011 and likely to last 12 years.
The area already suffers from traffic congestion both in normal rush hours and also whenever there is an accident on and around the M5/M4 inter- change; an all too frequent occurrence these days. If you add to this the congestion created by the construction traffic together with the de-commissioning of the old power station this area will bear a huge toll
7. Potential conflict with the Severn Barrage
It has not been determined whether the construction of a new power station at Shepperdine could interfere with the proposal to build a Severn Barrage, or vice versa. However, the DECC acknowledges that there could well be adverse environmental and other impacts.
Shepperdine and Hinkley are the only two of the planned power stations that could potentially interfere with other strands of the UK's long-term energy policy, and particularly its use of sustainable natural sources of power.
It is illogical to consider detailed plans for Shepperdine without knowing whether or not a Severn Barrage will go ahead or the details/location of such a barrage. To do so could very well pre-determine the outcome of this hugely important renewable scheme and is definitely not in the long term interests of this country.
8. Proximity to large populations
The proposed site will lie very close to some significant populations including Thornbury (less than 5 miles population circa 12,500), the city of Bristol (approx 10 miles population circa 450,000) and the towns across the river of Chepstow and Lydney, both of which are less than 5 miles from this site.
Given the risks identified earlier (and the DECC admission that these power stations should not be close to large populations for safety reasons) we consider that this site is too close to these communities to be acceptable and therefore it is an unsuitable location for these new generation of nuclear power stations.
As well as the safety risks, properties in the area have already been blighted by the draft Nuclear NPS having included Shepperdine in their list of 10 suitable sites. Many people are unable to sell their homes and will not be able to for many years if this site remains in the NPS when it is designated. Home owners in the area have already suffered enough damage due to the current economic recession and do not now need this blight inflicted upon them.
As well as the many villages close by, which will be devastated by the over-bearing nature of this site both during and after the construction, the nomination of Shepperdine will affect sales of homes for miles around the location including towns like Thornbury, Chepstow and Lydney all of which have many homes with views looking over the site. The Secretary of State should expect a considerable number of claims with respect to this blight made even worse by the fact that this site is located close to several towns.
9. Upgrading of National Grid infrastructure
The National Grid power lines serving the existing power station are of inadequate capacity to serve the proposed capacity for the new power station at Shepperdine. Therefore, not only will new power lines be needed to connect the new station up to the existing grid, but the power lines running out from Oldbury for several miles will need to be replaced. This will involve replacing of the cables and the pylons throughout these lengths.
These works will have a significant impact on the countryside and will add to the huge disruption to this area. Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the residents living along these power line routes have yet been consulted on this matter, despite the fact that the increased capacity will have a serious impact on their health.
10. Known history of subsidence in this area
It is understood that the recent site investigations have revealed that this site lies on deep layers of alluvium with hard clay beneath. This type of bedrock is vulnerable to subsidence. It is also the same sort of ground conditions as exist beneath the existing power station at Oldbury which has suffered from a history of problems resulting from subsidence. This has led to reactor shut downs etc.
It makes no sense whatsover to construct a new larger nuclear power station on the same type of ground as has already proven to be problematic in this respect.
Our concerns are compounded by the fact that a local resident who witnessed recent site investigation drilling being undertaken by Horizon and reports that the drilling had gone down to a depth of over 200 meters and had still not found substantial rock for foundations. We therefore believe that this site has serious ground condition difficulties and suggest that the DECC review the site investigation report before continuing with this nomination.
Conclusions
As we have outlined above we believe that DECC need to re-consider their NPS for energy as it is not fit for purpose in many different ways.
Furthermore for the reasons given above, Shepperdine is an obviously unsuitable site for a new generation nuclear power station.
We believe that the decision to include Shepperdine was weighted by the pre-existing infrastructure at Oldbury (an infrastructure that we now know has to be completely replaced in any case); the fact that the existing Oldbury power station has long been tolerated by the local population; and in the words of the DECC, "the lack of alternatives."
However, for reasons of environmental protection, safety and sustainability, we argue that this setting is now no longer appropriate for a new station especially along the scale of these new generation power stations now proposed by the promoters.
We strongly urge the Government to remove Shepperdine from the list of nominated sites within the NPS and to explore other options for making good the shortfall. We believe this should be met with truly renewable energy which does not rely on the limited supply of uranium from other countries; one which is already showing signs of drying up and the mining and transportation of which is extremely carbon intensive.
This area offers diverse opportunities to harness natural energy from its rich coastal and tidal powers. We feel that the government should make much more effort in focussing on the natural power generation reserves of this area and stop allowing nuclear energy to distract the energy markets attention in this region fr
PRESS RELEASE-------DECC-PLEASE SEE THE LIGHT-----PRESS RELEASE
MARCH 4th AT 6.15pm OUTSIDE OF THORNBURY TOWN COUNCIL OFFICES
From Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy*
LOCAL RESIDENTS TO MARCH IN A CALL TO THE GOVERNMENT TO "SEE THE LIGHT"
OLDBURY IS SIMPLY NOT SUITABLE FOR NEW NUCLEAR
Following the recent discussion meeting held in Thornbury with representatives from the DECC and the subsequent submissions that numerous bodies and individuals have made to the DECC we feel it is imperative that the Shepperdine site, near Oldbury is removed from the list of 10 sites proposed for new nuclear power stations. This site is totally unsuitable on so many obvious grounds but we have reservations that the government will not listen in their rush to fix the mess they are now in over their predicted energy gap.....
We are to hold a protest gathering and march in Thornbury town centre on Thursady March 4th at 6.15pm entitled "DECC----Please See The Light" before the meeting held by the promoter (Eon) on the same evening.
It will involve a short march from outside the Thornbury Town Council Offices to the Eon meeting at Cossham Hall with the protesters carrying placards, torches, candles and other forms of light.
We will also be projecting some key messages and images on to the buildings in the vicinity.
Reg Illingworth of SANE says "The people of the villages of the Severn Vale and the town of Thornbury know that what DECC is proposing is wrong on so many grounds--- it is reassuring to have the support of South Gloucestershire Council and numerous politicians. Our County Council have now highlighted most of these to the DECC in their formal response. Including the fact that it is in a high level flood zone, where it is so obviously ridiculous to consider such a scheme, made even more ridiculous when you bear in mind they are planning to store highly toxic waste on the site for up to 150 years! Other obvious concerns highlighted by the council include the impact of the monstrous cooling towers on the adjacent areas of outstanding natural beauty and the cummulative effect of other large scale proposals in the area including the Severn tidal barrage."
" We invite everybody with any concerns to join our protest on the evening. It is still by no means certain that the government will listen to us in their rush to rectify the damage done by doing nothing about filling the energy gap for far too long. It will be for a maximum of one hour! It could help save our community!"
"Your support is valued"
* Notes for press:
Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy is a newly formed group of local residents living close to the nominated site referred to in the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) draft National Policy Statement for Energy (NPS) documentation as ‘Oldbury’. This proposed site is in fact within the village of Shepperdine 2.5km to the north of Oldbury. Our group is growing in numbers and includes residents from the villages of Shepperdine itself, Oldbury, Rockhampton, Nupdown, Falfield and the nearby town of Thornbury . Contact Reg Illingworth: tel 07979 560056
The DECC has just completed its public consultation on these documents and when finalised they will nominate the sites they consider suitable for a new generation of super-sized nuclear power stations. The documents will also set out the 'rules' which the (much criticised new government quango) Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) must follow in determining whether or not Planning Consent should be granted. The draft of these rules sets out what the IPC can and can not consider and in its current form seeks to pre-determine the outcome of the new nuclear sites by stating that it should not consider many of these serious issues.
DECC "Please See the Light " Protest on March 4th before Eon Meeting
From Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy
Following the recent discussion with the representatives from DECC and the subsequent submissions that numerous bodies and individuals have made to DECC we feel it is imperative that the Shepperdine site is deselected from the 10 sites proposed.
We are to hold a protest gathering and march in Thornbury town centre on Thursady March 4th at 6.15pm entitled "DECC----Please See The Light" before the meeting held by the promoter (Eon) on the same evening.
It will involve a short march from outside the Thornbury Town Council Offices to the Eon meeting at Cossham Hall with the protesters carrying plackards, torches, candles and other forms of light.
We will also be projecting some key messages and images on to the buildings in the vicinity.
Please tell your neighbours,relatives friends or anybody about this. The more the merrier!
You can book your tickets through Samantha Stagg at eon oldburyenquiries@eon-uk.com
Following the recent discussion with the representatives from DECC and the subsequent submissions that numerous bodies and individuals have made to DECC we feel it is imperative that the Shepperdine site is deselected from the 10 sites proposed.
We are to hold a protest gathering and march in Thornbury town centre on Thursady March 4th at 6.15pm entitled "DECC----Please See The Light" before the meeting held by the promoter (Eon) on the same evening.
It will involve a short march from outside the Thornbury Town Council Offices to the Eon meeting at Cossham Hall with the protesters carrying plackards, torches, candles and other forms of light.
We will also be projecting some key messages and images on to the buildings in the vicinity.
Please tell your neighbours,relatives friends or anybody about this. The more the merrier!
You can book your tickets through Samantha Stagg at eon oldburyenquiries@eon-uk.com
The Reactors Eon/RWE are considering for Oldbury might not stand up to terrorist attack
From The Times February 17, 2010
New nuclear reactors might not stand up to terrorist attacksRobin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
One of the two new nuclear reactor designs being considered for use in Britain may not be strong enough to withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner, which could stop the technology being licensed in Britain, the UK’s nuclear safety watchdog said yesterday.
The claim from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) that the design could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks is a blow for the American-Japanese group that is behind the AP1000 reactor type.
Toshiba-Westinghouse sees the UK as a significant growth market and hopes that the technology can play a big role in plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain.
But yesterday the NII raised its concerns in an official letter, which insisted that Toshiba-Westinghouse provide fresh evidence that the design was sufficiently strong to withstand “external shocks” before it could be considered for a UK licence.
Pressure on to hasten nuclear construction
Germans to invest £20bn in UK nuclear plants
Kevin Allars, the NII director responsible for a detailed safety review of the two reactor technologies earmarked for Britain — the AP1000 and the EPR, a French design from Areva — told The Times that any new reactor must be able to “withstand an external shock, such as an earthquake, extreme weather or a strike from an aircraft”. He said that the standards were contained in the NII’s Safety Assessment Principles, set by the security services.
The NII, he said, was concerned that a new design method proposed by Toshiba-Westinghouse, aimed at speeding up construction and cutting costs, could mean that the reactor’s exterior concrete shell would be less robust than a conventionally built nuclear power plant.
The letter said that Toshiba-Westinghouse’s proposed “modular” approach to construction, where large components are built off-site and then transported in for assembly, was not proven. It raised questions about the strength of the external fabric of the building, which uses a concrete and steel sandwich structure. Traditional methods, adopted by the EPR, involve reinforced concrete is poured in situ.
Mr Allars expressed confidence that the concerns could be resolved. “This is not a showstopper. But we need to resolve these concerns before we can proceed.”
Mike Tynan, chief executive of Westinghouse UK, acknowledged that there was “a significant amount of work that needs to be done” to secure a licence and said it was right that the AP1000 design should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The company said that ten AP1000 plants were already on order, four in China and six in the United States.
Horizon Nuclear Power, a joint venture between E.ON and RWE, is considering ordering the AP1000 for two new nuclear stations at Oldbury, in Gloucestershire, and Wylfa, on Anglesey. Each reactor is expected to cost up to £4 billion to build.
Mr Tynan said that the letter was part of a normal regulatory procedure. “The matters highlighted are not new and we have been working with the regulators for some months towards a plan to provide them with the assurances and information they need.” He believed that this could be achieved by mid-2011.
Analysis: Robin Pagnamenta
The Government may have given a green light to new nuclear power plants two years ago, but it will be the end of 2017 before the first one starts to generate electricity — and even then, only if everything runs like clockwork.
It is not merely the huge costs and the planning disputes that are holding things up. The industry regulatoris in the midst of a titanic effort to approve two new reactor designs for use in the UK. Neither of these is yet generating electricity anywhere in the world, intensifying the drive to make sure they will be safe and reliable for decades to come.
Dozens of nuclear engineers are now employed full-time by the NII on the project, as well as dozens of support staff and contractors. But it will still be 18 months before either design can be approved.
The concerns expressed by the NII yesterday about the strength of the AP1000 reactor casing are a part of this process and the obligation now rests on Toshiba-Westinghouse to persuade the regulator that its design is safe.
Only after the NII has granted a reactor licence can EDF, RWE and E.ON, the energy companies that want to build reactors in the UK, submit a proper planning application for the sites they have selected. The first concrete will not be poured before 2013.
New nuclear reactors might not stand up to terrorist attacksRobin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
One of the two new nuclear reactor designs being considered for use in Britain may not be strong enough to withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner, which could stop the technology being licensed in Britain, the UK’s nuclear safety watchdog said yesterday.
The claim from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) that the design could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks is a blow for the American-Japanese group that is behind the AP1000 reactor type.
Toshiba-Westinghouse sees the UK as a significant growth market and hopes that the technology can play a big role in plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain.
But yesterday the NII raised its concerns in an official letter, which insisted that Toshiba-Westinghouse provide fresh evidence that the design was sufficiently strong to withstand “external shocks” before it could be considered for a UK licence.
Pressure on to hasten nuclear construction
Germans to invest £20bn in UK nuclear plants
Kevin Allars, the NII director responsible for a detailed safety review of the two reactor technologies earmarked for Britain — the AP1000 and the EPR, a French design from Areva — told The Times that any new reactor must be able to “withstand an external shock, such as an earthquake, extreme weather or a strike from an aircraft”. He said that the standards were contained in the NII’s Safety Assessment Principles, set by the security services.
The NII, he said, was concerned that a new design method proposed by Toshiba-Westinghouse, aimed at speeding up construction and cutting costs, could mean that the reactor’s exterior concrete shell would be less robust than a conventionally built nuclear power plant.
The letter said that Toshiba-Westinghouse’s proposed “modular” approach to construction, where large components are built off-site and then transported in for assembly, was not proven. It raised questions about the strength of the external fabric of the building, which uses a concrete and steel sandwich structure. Traditional methods, adopted by the EPR, involve reinforced concrete is poured in situ.
Mr Allars expressed confidence that the concerns could be resolved. “This is not a showstopper. But we need to resolve these concerns before we can proceed.”
Mike Tynan, chief executive of Westinghouse UK, acknowledged that there was “a significant amount of work that needs to be done” to secure a licence and said it was right that the AP1000 design should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The company said that ten AP1000 plants were already on order, four in China and six in the United States.
Horizon Nuclear Power, a joint venture between E.ON and RWE, is considering ordering the AP1000 for two new nuclear stations at Oldbury, in Gloucestershire, and Wylfa, on Anglesey. Each reactor is expected to cost up to £4 billion to build.
Mr Tynan said that the letter was part of a normal regulatory procedure. “The matters highlighted are not new and we have been working with the regulators for some months towards a plan to provide them with the assurances and information they need.” He believed that this could be achieved by mid-2011.
Analysis: Robin Pagnamenta
The Government may have given a green light to new nuclear power plants two years ago, but it will be the end of 2017 before the first one starts to generate electricity — and even then, only if everything runs like clockwork.
It is not merely the huge costs and the planning disputes that are holding things up. The industry regulatoris in the midst of a titanic effort to approve two new reactor designs for use in the UK. Neither of these is yet generating electricity anywhere in the world, intensifying the drive to make sure they will be safe and reliable for decades to come.
Dozens of nuclear engineers are now employed full-time by the NII on the project, as well as dozens of support staff and contractors. But it will still be 18 months before either design can be approved.
The concerns expressed by the NII yesterday about the strength of the AP1000 reactor casing are a part of this process and the obligation now rests on Toshiba-Westinghouse to persuade the regulator that its design is safe.
Only after the NII has granted a reactor licence can EDF, RWE and E.ON, the energy companies that want to build reactors in the UK, submit a proper planning application for the sites they have selected. The first concrete will not be poured before 2013.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
South Gloucs Council Response to DECC NPS Statements---Hot off Press
Pleas take a look at South Gloucs response to DECC which you can find on the following link:-
http://www.southglos.gov.uk/_Resources/Publications/PTE/10/0200/PTE-10-0028
The overview says "At present South Gloucestershire Council cannot agree in principle with the decision to include Oldbury on the list of sites for new nuclear power stations in EN-6"
They go in to thorough detail of a significant number of concerns about the project.
http://www.southglos.gov.uk/_Resources/Publications/PTE/10/0200/PTE-10-0028
The overview says "At present South Gloucestershire Council cannot agree in principle with the decision to include Oldbury on the list of sites for new nuclear power stations in EN-6"
They go in to thorough detail of a significant number of concerns about the project.
Monday, 15 February 2010
Oldbury on Severn Council Meeting on Wednesday 17th February
This is a letter from one of our community who has highlighted the fact that Oldbury on Severn Parish Council is meeting to finalise their submission to DECC prior to the 22nd February. It is well worth attending no matter where you are from as you will get some valuable tips for compiling your own submssions prior to Feb 22nd.
"Just looking through the Parish 4 Wards Magazine and see the meeting to present what the local Council feel ‘relevant and appropriate as a response to the DECC regarding the Draft NPS’ is on Wednesday 17th February at 7.30pm, Memorial Hall. It is to give us a change to give our opinion on the proposed response so I am resending my December concerns by email and adding a few more now it covers the whole proposed build as they have to take notice if it is in writing and things sometimes get missed when verbally addressed at these meetings!
Barry Turner’s email address: chad@highchimneys.fsnet.co.uk
Perhaps, if you agree, you could send this to the relevant people on your circulation list so they can add their comments/concerns and thus make sure nothing has been omitted. "
Time is now of the essence!
"Just looking through the Parish 4 Wards Magazine and see the meeting to present what the local Council feel ‘relevant and appropriate as a response to the DECC regarding the Draft NPS’ is on Wednesday 17th February at 7.30pm, Memorial Hall. It is to give us a change to give our opinion on the proposed response so I am resending my December concerns by email and adding a few more now it covers the whole proposed build as they have to take notice if it is in writing and things sometimes get missed when verbally addressed at these meetings!
Barry Turner’s email address: chad@highchimneys.fsnet.co.uk
Perhaps, if you agree, you could send this to the relevant people on your circulation list so they can add their comments/concerns and thus make sure nothing has been omitted. "
Time is now of the essence!
Sunday, 14 February 2010
DECC Reply from one of Our Community
Having attended the consultation with regards to the proposed construction of a new nuclear power station at Oldbury on Severn, held by DECC on 6th February 2010, at Thornbury Leisure centre, I wish to submit the following points to you. Please confirm that these points have been received and that they are taken into account before any decisions are reached regarding the agreement to build a nuclear power station.
1) During the meeting the representatives from DECC confirmed that the proposed site is within a flood group 3 zone which means that the area including Littleton on Severn, Rockhampton, Ham, Berkeley, Shepperdine, and Oldbury are all in an area that is, according to the Environment Agency , “deemed to be at high risk of flooding by fluvial or coastal and tidal flooding”. According to the Government website : communities .gov.uk: “Planning Policy Statement 25 sets out Government policy on development and flood risk. It’s aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding, and to direct development away from areas of high risk. Where new development is, exceptionally necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible reducing flood risk overall”. The problem with this is that a concentrated flood defence around Oldbury is certainly going to make the flood threat for the surrounding areas much worse. If one considers that in 1607 the flood waters reached as far in land as Glastonbury then this will cause a serious threat. It is important to note that DECC has produced its own report on how a Severn Barrage would affect the tides and sediments of the Severn. The big question is, what does this report say, and why are we not allowed to see it? According to an official Dutch report, the consequences of a barrage across the Severn, which would be similar to that at Oosterschelde, is likely to increase water levels in the estuary and shipping lanes will become shallower and harder to manage. The tidal mud flats will begin to disappear and the salt marshes will disappear altogether. The DECC according to the RSPB , have known about this report since 2008. The consequences for a new power station would be heavily affected should the Severn Barrage be built.
2) Of the ten sites being considered for new nuclear power stations by DECC, there is only one which does not have suitable access to water for cooling. This then seems to be a very strange choice when you consider that there are approximately 7723 miles of coastline to choose from. One of the problems caused by not having suitable water for cooling is that an alternative for cooling has to be employed. In this instance it is proposed that 4 large cooling towers will have to be built in the Severn Vale, itself an area of great natural beauty. None of the other sites will require cooling towers. It is totally inappropriate to the area for such a construction to be considered, especially when the views of the Government’s Planning Statement Policy 25 go against such unnecessary building work.
3) It emerged during the consultation that all of the proposed sites would need to send their waste to be deposited in Geological Nuclear storage sites. A major anomaly occurred here, as I was told categorically at the exhibition held at Turnberries by a DECC representative on the evening of 5th February, that only one community had come forward on a voluntary basis to host a Geological Storage facility, and that this was in Cumbria. At the meeting the following day, it was stated that there were two communities that had volunteered, a 100% increase since the previous evening. It was stressed at the meeting that only communities that volunteered would have to have a Nuclear Storage facility. It was also stated that Oldbury would necessarily have to store Nuclear Waste and this will certainly be the case especially if no more communities come forward to volunteer to host a storage site. If then it is agreed that no community will be forced to host Nuclear Waste storage sites and that this is strictly on a voluntary basis, then surely our community should be afforded the same rights. To force this upon our communities goes against our rights as stated under the European Bill of Human Rights and transgresses the whole democratic system.
4) As regards the Geological Survey of the area being carried out, we were told by a DECC representative that some initial drilling has taken place at the site. What we were not told by DECC was the extent of the drilling so far. It was left to a Gentleman from Shepperdine to illuminate us. He had spoken to a construction engineer at the site who told him that the drill he had been operating had been sunk to a depth of over 200 meters and had still not found substantial rock for foundations. Bearing in mind that a Geological survey of the area in 2004 conducted by Dr Haslett of Bath Spa University College and Dr Bryant concluded that two large areas of farmland had been washed away in 1607 by water, and that one of these is the large area now used as the cooling pool for the present reactor. This then, is unstable land situated within a Flood Zone 3 area, and I have seen no evidence coming from DECC to convince me that this is a sensible place to build anything, let alone a Nuclear Reactor.
In conclusion, this is the wrong area for a new Power Plant, and the Government and DECC should come up with an alternative.
Yours, Ashley Haigh resident of Thornbury.
1) During the meeting the representatives from DECC confirmed that the proposed site is within a flood group 3 zone which means that the area including Littleton on Severn, Rockhampton, Ham, Berkeley, Shepperdine, and Oldbury are all in an area that is, according to the Environment Agency , “deemed to be at high risk of flooding by fluvial or coastal and tidal flooding”. According to the Government website : communities .gov.uk: “Planning Policy Statement 25 sets out Government policy on development and flood risk. It’s aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding, and to direct development away from areas of high risk. Where new development is, exceptionally necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible reducing flood risk overall”. The problem with this is that a concentrated flood defence around Oldbury is certainly going to make the flood threat for the surrounding areas much worse. If one considers that in 1607 the flood waters reached as far in land as Glastonbury then this will cause a serious threat. It is important to note that DECC has produced its own report on how a Severn Barrage would affect the tides and sediments of the Severn. The big question is, what does this report say, and why are we not allowed to see it? According to an official Dutch report, the consequences of a barrage across the Severn, which would be similar to that at Oosterschelde, is likely to increase water levels in the estuary and shipping lanes will become shallower and harder to manage. The tidal mud flats will begin to disappear and the salt marshes will disappear altogether. The DECC according to the RSPB , have known about this report since 2008. The consequences for a new power station would be heavily affected should the Severn Barrage be built.
2) Of the ten sites being considered for new nuclear power stations by DECC, there is only one which does not have suitable access to water for cooling. This then seems to be a very strange choice when you consider that there are approximately 7723 miles of coastline to choose from. One of the problems caused by not having suitable water for cooling is that an alternative for cooling has to be employed. In this instance it is proposed that 4 large cooling towers will have to be built in the Severn Vale, itself an area of great natural beauty. None of the other sites will require cooling towers. It is totally inappropriate to the area for such a construction to be considered, especially when the views of the Government’s Planning Statement Policy 25 go against such unnecessary building work.
3) It emerged during the consultation that all of the proposed sites would need to send their waste to be deposited in Geological Nuclear storage sites. A major anomaly occurred here, as I was told categorically at the exhibition held at Turnberries by a DECC representative on the evening of 5th February, that only one community had come forward on a voluntary basis to host a Geological Storage facility, and that this was in Cumbria. At the meeting the following day, it was stated that there were two communities that had volunteered, a 100% increase since the previous evening. It was stressed at the meeting that only communities that volunteered would have to have a Nuclear Storage facility. It was also stated that Oldbury would necessarily have to store Nuclear Waste and this will certainly be the case especially if no more communities come forward to volunteer to host a storage site. If then it is agreed that no community will be forced to host Nuclear Waste storage sites and that this is strictly on a voluntary basis, then surely our community should be afforded the same rights. To force this upon our communities goes against our rights as stated under the European Bill of Human Rights and transgresses the whole democratic system.
4) As regards the Geological Survey of the area being carried out, we were told by a DECC representative that some initial drilling has taken place at the site. What we were not told by DECC was the extent of the drilling so far. It was left to a Gentleman from Shepperdine to illuminate us. He had spoken to a construction engineer at the site who told him that the drill he had been operating had been sunk to a depth of over 200 meters and had still not found substantial rock for foundations. Bearing in mind that a Geological survey of the area in 2004 conducted by Dr Haslett of Bath Spa University College and Dr Bryant concluded that two large areas of farmland had been washed away in 1607 by water, and that one of these is the large area now used as the cooling pool for the present reactor. This then, is unstable land situated within a Flood Zone 3 area, and I have seen no evidence coming from DECC to convince me that this is a sensible place to build anything, let alone a Nuclear Reactor.
In conclusion, this is the wrong area for a new Power Plant, and the Government and DECC should come up with an alternative.
Yours, Ashley Haigh resident of Thornbury.
Friday, 12 February 2010
Letter from Horizon PR Contact Samantha Stagg
We have received an email letter from Samantha which details some points about the March 4th meeting.
You can also check this out on http://www.oldburynuclearviewpoint.org.uk/ .
It is believrd that Horizon will be releasing their scoping document very soon, perhaps even on the 4th?
Dear Reg
Thanks for your ongoing interest in Horizon Nuclear Power's forthcoming events in Thornbury on 4th March. I think its worth clarifying exactly what the 4th March is all about, and importantly what it is not.
The drop-in surgery provides an ongoing opportunity for members of the public to drop in and chat with us if they wish to meet members of the team or ask questions, and supplements the other channels we have for communication through our website e-mail, freephone number and newsletters. This is an initiative on our part, and not any formal requirement, and follows on from a similar event a few months back which was well attended and for which we received constructive feedback.
It's really important that people understand that we haven’t yet begun any formal pre-application consultation (as required by the Planning Act 2008). The development and design for the proposed new nuclear power station at Oldbury will need to have advanced somewhat to allow us to carry out the consultation, and we will publicise this widely before it is undertaken.
At this stage, we’re trying to keep people abreast of the early development work which will then develop as our initial studies are completed.
The talk in the evening is in response to feedback received from members of the public at our exhibitions and previous drop-in surgery. It is intended to be an informative presentation on the main aspects to be considered in developing a large infrastructure project such as new nuclear build at Oldbury, and it is aimed at a general audience. Following on from the recent Planning Aid meeting in Oldbury and the DECC event in Thornbury, and in again in response to feedback from the public, we will also try and re-cap on the pre-application consultation process as it applies to new nuclear build, and where the public can have their say.
To avoid any confusion or misunderstanding about the nature of the forthcoming event on the 4th March, we believe that it would be very helpful if this email could be uploaded to your blog and on behalf of Horizon Nuclear Power would like to express our thanks for this.
Yours sincerely
Samantha
Samantha Stagg
James Reed Public Relations, Bristol, on behalf of Horizon Nuclear Power
You can also check this out on http://www.oldburynuclearviewpoint.org.uk/ .
It is believrd that Horizon will be releasing their scoping document very soon, perhaps even on the 4th?
Dear Reg
Thanks for your ongoing interest in Horizon Nuclear Power's forthcoming events in Thornbury on 4th March. I think its worth clarifying exactly what the 4th March is all about, and importantly what it is not.
The drop-in surgery provides an ongoing opportunity for members of the public to drop in and chat with us if they wish to meet members of the team or ask questions, and supplements the other channels we have for communication through our website e-mail, freephone number and newsletters. This is an initiative on our part, and not any formal requirement, and follows on from a similar event a few months back which was well attended and for which we received constructive feedback.
It's really important that people understand that we haven’t yet begun any formal pre-application consultation (as required by the Planning Act 2008). The development and design for the proposed new nuclear power station at Oldbury will need to have advanced somewhat to allow us to carry out the consultation, and we will publicise this widely before it is undertaken.
At this stage, we’re trying to keep people abreast of the early development work which will then develop as our initial studies are completed.
The talk in the evening is in response to feedback received from members of the public at our exhibitions and previous drop-in surgery. It is intended to be an informative presentation on the main aspects to be considered in developing a large infrastructure project such as new nuclear build at Oldbury, and it is aimed at a general audience. Following on from the recent Planning Aid meeting in Oldbury and the DECC event in Thornbury, and in again in response to feedback from the public, we will also try and re-cap on the pre-application consultation process as it applies to new nuclear build, and where the public can have their say.
To avoid any confusion or misunderstanding about the nature of the forthcoming event on the 4th March, we believe that it would be very helpful if this email could be uploaded to your blog and on behalf of Horizon Nuclear Power would like to express our thanks for this.
Yours sincerely
Samantha
Samantha Stagg
James Reed Public Relations, Bristol, on behalf of Horizon Nuclear Power
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
