Transcript It Is a Moral Issue * Why We Should Say *No* to Nuclear

It Is a Moral Issue – Why We
Should Say ‘No’ to Nuclear
Andrew Blowers
Presentation at Thornbury,
November 2010
Flowers Report
there should be no commitment to a large
programme of nuclear fission power until it
has been demonstrated beyond reasonable
doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe
containment of long lived, highly radioactive
waste for the indefinite future’
(RCEP, Nuclear Power and the Environment,
6th. Report, Cmnd 6618, para. 27)
Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management (CoRWM)
1.
2.
4.
5.
Within the present state of knowledge CoRWM considers geological
disposal to be the best available approach for the long-term
management ..when compared with the risks associated with other
methods of management.
A robust programme of interim storage must play an integral part in the
long term strategy….that is robust against the risk of delay or failure in
the repository programme.
There should be a commitment to an intensified programme of
research and development into the long-term safety of geological
disposal aimed at reducing uncertainties…
The commitment to ensuring flexibility in decision making should leave
open the possibility that other long-term management options..could
emerge as practical alternatives.
(Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely, CoRWM’s Recommendations
to Government, November, 2006)
CoRWM on New Build
The main concern in the present context is that
the proposals might be seized upon as providing
a green light for new build. That is far from the
case. New build wastes would extend the
timescales for implementation, possibly for very
long but essentially unknowable, future periods.
Further, the political and ethical issues raised by
the creation of more wastes are quite different
from those relating to committed - and therefore
avoidable – wastes.
(CoRWM, 2006, p.15)
White Paper on Nuclear Energy 2008
• ‘..before development consents for new
nuclear power stations are granted, the
government will need to be satisfied that
effective arrangements exist or will exist to
manage and dispose of the waste they will
produce’
(CM 7296, 2008, p.99)
NPS on Nuclear Power Generation –
EN-6
• ‘Geological disposal is the way higher activity
waste will be managed in the long term’
• ‘no new issues arise that challenge the
fundamental disposability of the wastes and
spent fuel expected to arise from operation of
the reactor designs currently being assessed
by the GDA process’
• (EN-6 revised, Annex B)
NPS EN-6 on timescales for disposal
• ‘The Government has therefore not set a fixed
delivery timetable..’
• ‘..the Government is developing a clear
timeline for the implementation of geological
disposal..’
(Annex B)
NPS EN-6 on radwaste policy
• ‘..the Government is satisfied that interim storage
will provide an extendable, safe and secure
means of containing waste for as long as it takes
to site and construct a geological disposal
facility’.
• ‘Having considered this issue, the Government is
satisfied that effective arrangements will exist to
manage and dispose of the waste that will be
produced from new nuclear power stations’
(Annex B)
EN-6 on number of sites
Given the very limited number of sites identified
as potentially suitable for the deployment of new
nuclear power stations before the end of 2025,
the Government considers that all eight are
required to be listed in this NPS. This is to allow
sufficient flexibility to meet the urgent need for
new nuclear power stations whilst enabling the
IPC to refuse consent should it consider it
appropriate to do so.
(EN-6 revised, p.9)
EN-6 on flood risk to sites
• ..the Government has determined that all of
the listed sites are required to be listed as
being potentially suitable for new nuclear
development in spite of some being located in
higher flood risk zones because of the lack of
alternative sites and the need for new nuclear
development.
(EN-6 revised, p.21)
EN-6 on Mitigation
..applicants should identify the potential
effects of the credible maximum scenario in
the most recent projections of marine and
coastal flooding. Applicant must then be able
to demonstrate that they could achieve
further measures for flood management at
the site in the future if future climate change
predictions show they are necessary.
(EN-6 revised, p.20)
EN-6 on protection of sites
The Environment Agency has advised that it is
reasonable to conclude that a nuclear power
station within the nominated site could
potentially be protected against flood risks
throughout its lifetime, including the potential
effects of climate change, storm surge and
tsunami, taking into account possible
countermeasures.
(Annex C p. 27)