Sizewell B incidents Added: 13 August 2010 10:12

SIZEWELL B nuclear power station remains off-line but is on track to re-open later this year, its owner EDF Energy has confirmed. Meanwhile, a pressure group is calling on the company and environmental watchdogs to be more open with members of the public following a number of “near misses” at the Suffolk plant.

Lowestoft Journal 9th Aug 2010
http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/content/lowestoftjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=LOWOnline&category=NEWS&tBrand=lowonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED09%20Aug%202010%2007%3A53%3A14%3A887 Sizewell B incidents

Suffolk asks for £10million Added: 13 August 2010 10:02

Twenty four villages around Sizewell Nuclear power station in Suffolk are asking for more than 10 million pounds if a new plant is built. The parishes, which include Leiston, Saxmundham and Middleton, want energy companies and suppliers to put up the money.

ITV Anglia Tonight 5th Aug 2010
http://www.itv.com/anglia/sizewell-money-demand61524/ Suffolk asks for £10 million

Maldon DC against Middlewick wind farm Added: 01 August 2010 16:25

On Thursday 29th July at the planning meeting of Maldon District Council, meeting, councillors unanimously opposed the Middlewick windfarm. One of their key arguments was that this new coalition Government will allow local councils to decide local issues.

Cllr Mike Wood attended to voice his support as he had at the SE area committee, to no avail. He said he had just spent four days at a windfarm which was very quiet. The officer said the Middlewick windfarm would provide electricity for 38% of Maldon district homes. The Bradwell windfarm has apparently been challenged for the third time for a Judicial Review.

The Maldon version of the Essex Chronicle had a frontpage item about the council's overspending, including £170,000 on their opposition to the Bradwell windfarm.

Middlewick Wind Farm discussion Added: 27 July 2010 08:55

A meeting is to be held by Maldon District Council at their offices on Thursday 29 July concerning the Middlewick Wind Turbine application. It starts at 7.30pm

New group for Middlewick turbines Added: 07 June 2010 09:39

The Bradwell Wind Farm ground preparations are beginning, and the Middlewick Wind Farm has been given approval by English Nature. The proposal goes before Maldon District Council Planning Committee 13/14 July. A new group in the area, World of Wind, is promoting the turbines: for details go to this Facebook site that can be accessed by non-Facebook users
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=106633599383066
World of Windwww.facebook.com/group.php?gid=106633599383066

Local business community supports wind farm Added: 04 June 2010 11:41

June 1st Colchester Gazette article about business leaders -Essex Chambers of Commerce is supporting Middlewick windfarm and '£6m spin-off from wind farm for community'.

"I was brought up near Bradwell " Added: 16 May 2010 10:32

I was bought up near Bradwell nuclear power station in England. Their PR department painted a picture of clean, scientific-based efficiency that encourages us to relax and leave it all to the experts. My father served in the nearby fire station. Twice they were alerted by farmers near Bradwell power station that canisters marked as containing radioactive materials mysteriously appeared in their fields; no explanations offered. In 1966, twenty natural uranium fuel rods were stolen from Bradwell power station; no explanations offered. In February 2009 the operators of that nuclear power station were found guilty of letting radioactive materials leak for over a decade – but they never checked it.

Sun2Surf 14th May 2010
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=46749 "I was brought up near Bradwell..."

Can nuclear happen without public subsidy? Added: 14 May 2010 09:01

Article from East Anglian Daily Times:


East Anglian Daily Times
'No public subsidies for nuclear power'
East Anglian Daily Times
... a second generation of nuclear power plants at Sizewell and Bradwell-on-Sea. ... to speed up the process which would allow nuclear stations to be built. ...
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/politics/no_public_subsidies_for_nuclear_power_1_301499 No public subsidy for nuclear power

Response to this in a letter to EADT:

On May 14th you report that the Energy Minister, Chris Huhne, has categorically stated that there will be no new nuclear power stations unless the companies can guarantee that they will be built without public subsidy.

The previous Labour Government launched two consultations on nuclear finance which are still open. The main one deals with a proposal to offer the nuclear industry a Fixed Unit Price for waste disposal. It sets out the methodology to be used to determine the fixed unit price and updates estimates of the costs of waste management, decommissioning and waste disposal.

This effectively caps the cost to the operator of nuclear waste disposal and transfers the risk of cost overruns to the taxpayer, so represents a public subsidy to new reactors. Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at New College, Oxford, says this effectively means utilities will pay the state to absorb the risks of handling nuclear waste. Gordon Mackerron, former chair of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), and Stephen Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University, have both attacked these plans, because, whilst the proposal is to cap reactor operators’ liability, we only have a vague idea of what a nuclear waste repository will cost. From past experience of the accuracy of nuclear cost estimates, and indeed judging by the cost escalations just since 2007, the proposed system could prove costly to taxpayers.

The industry should be required to pay the full commercial rate for waste disposal costs. If this proves to be far too expensive, killing the prospects of any new reactors, then utilities will need to generate electricity by other, less (financially) risky means, or implement efficiency measures. There are plenty of opportunities to do this without requiring the taxpayer to accept the risk for such uncertain outcomes.

We think this Labour consultation should be withdrawn and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change should draft regulations which force the industry to shoulder their own risks rather than seeking to dump these onto the taxpayer.

This is of particular concern, in that over the last few years we have been trying, without success, to get a straight answer out of my Member of Parliament and former Energy Minister Bernard Jenkin on Tory policy, both on nuclear costs and on public liability. The coalition therefore presents an excellent opportunity for a fresh start.

Bernard Jenkin shies away from cost Added: 04 May 2010 20:48

For a number of years this group has been trying to get an answer out of Bernard Jenkin. What are your costings on nuclear power generation for this country? Recently we asked him, in response to Tory policy that the public will not pay for nuclear, what about public liability insurance? Can a commercial outfit of such a nature afford it?

No answer.

Now listen to Jonathan Porritt of the Government's own think tank the Sustainable Energy Commission, at a meeting about Hinckley C in Somerset. Jonathan Porritt on new nuclear

Guardian blog - Bradwell Added: 22 April 2010 10:37

Bradwell opposition and the fact that the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) has received not one single application:


The Guardian
Labour's fast-track planning body: £9.3m to run a year and no punters
The Guardian
And the Tories and Lib Dems have pledged to close it down Bradwell nuclear power station. The site in Essex has been nominated as a site for a new reactor ...




Bradwell and the IPC

Hearing for Middlewick wind farm Added: 23 March 2010 13:27

The provisional date is set for 17 May .It will probably be heard at the Burnham Town Council Offices. However the application will not be decided at this committee meeting, it will be for the South East Members to make comments and will then be passed to the Planning and Licensing Committee for a final decision. The provisional date for that meeting is 10 June and will be held at Maldon District Council Offices, Princes Road, Maldon, CM9 5DL.

BRADWELL WIND FARM TO GO AHEAD Added: 25 January 2010 13:14

We are delighted to announce the news that, in spite of two public inquiries, the proposed 10 turbines to the south of the nuclear site have been given the go-ahead.

Transcripts of the DECC consultation meetings Added: 07 January 2010 15:14

These are verbatim accounts at several sites. There are two for Bradwell.


https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/home/events/localevents/ Transcripts of DECC meetings https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/home/events/localevents/

MP expresses concerns over fisheries in Parliament Added: 22 December 2009 13:52

Mr. Bernard Jenkin
What representations he has received from English Nature on the environmental effects of proposals for a new nuclear power station at Bradwell, Essex. [305573]
Huw Irranca-Davies
The Government requested and received comments from Natural England-formerly English Nature-on the appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulations assessment reports on the site at Bradwell, which was nominated in the Government's strategic siting assessment process.
Mr. Jenkin
I thank the Minister for his response but, even though I am an enthusiast for new nuclear power stations, may I draw his attention to the serious concern expressed to me, particularly by local fishermen and oystermen, that the volume of the outfall from a new power station is likely to be four times greater than that from the previous power station, thus causing serious continuing damage to the ecology of the Blackwater estuary? Can he assure me that that will be addressed, perhaps by ensuring that the intake and outfalls will be sufficiently far away?
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in representing the interests of local fishermen and people who are concerned about the impacts on the environment. I can confirm that Natural England's response suggested that there was insufficient evidence that a development at Bradwell could have no adverse impacts on the Natura 2000 sites and associated features. The Government took that on board during the assessment, and the conclusions in the habitats regulations assessment reflect that. Natural England has suggested that further assessment is needed, not least in relation to climate change and rising sea levels, of which he will be aware. I can assure him that I will keep a close eye on the matter, as will Natural England, to ensure that the pertinent factors he raises are taken into account.
HC Deb 10 December 2009 cc483-484

Concern over oysters and new build Added: 22 December 2009 13:50

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKGEE5AP2AK20091127
Text: There is concern, expressed in the Colchester Daily Gazette (Hugh, clickable http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/4348137.Could_nuclear_power_plant_spell/ ) that a new nuclear power station at Bradwell, in the Blackwater Estuary, Essex, could destroy parts of Colchester's native oyster fishery which has been renowned since Roman times.
This concern is based on the practice of nuclear power stations releasing large quatities of warmed "cooling water" into the estuary which alters the aquatic ecology, making it inhospitable to oysters; and, the fact that this scenario did actually occur with the old nuclear power station at Bradwell (now closed), with the oyster fishery only recovering once the discharges of water from the nuclear power station had ceased. In the case of the new nuclear power station it is said that 72,000 cubic litres of water will be pumped in and out of the Blackwater Estuary every second, more than twice the volume of the old Bradwell nuclear power station.
We reproduce the full report from the Daily Gazette below:
"Fears have been raised that Colchester’s world-famous oyster beds could be decimated if a new nuclear power station is built at Bradwell. Last month, the Government earmarked Bradwell as one of 11 potential sites for a new nuclear power station.
"To cool the new generation of stations, 72,000 cubic litres of water would be pumped in and out of the Blackwater Estuary every second – more than twice the volume needed at the old Bradwell power station. And campaigners believe the warm water pumped back could wipe out some sections of Colchester’s native oysters, beloved since Roman times.
"Alan Bird, a Mersea oyster fisherman for 45 years, said the shore and seabeds along the Bradwell coast became barren in the late Sixties, more than a decade after the original nuclear station opened. But within a few months of the nuclear facility being decommissioned in 2002, the coastline began to regenerate.
“I have major concerns about a new power station that will pump much more volume than the old one,” Mr Bird said. “I would say a year after it closed, we could see the beginnings of new life, and now we have a nice population along that shore. The suction pipe is going to suck in so much oyster larvae, I have grave doubts for the fishery.”
"Prof Graham Underwood, professor of ecology at Essex University, said native oysters, such as the famous Colchester variety, would be particularly affected by changes in the estuary’s environment. He said research was inconclusive, but the onus was on those bidding to open another nuclear plant to prove their case. “It’s up to the developers to show there will be no impact, not for the people who live around there to prove against them. The people of both sides of Mersea have invested many, many years of building these fisheries up and establishing them. In the absence of good studies it’s just not known what the impact would be.”
"The Government’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is set to commission research on the effects new water intake pipes would have on oyster stock.
"Concerns about the future of oysters was one issue raised at a meeting of Colchester Council’s strategic overview and scrutiny panel. A group tasked with looking into the potential effects of a new station at Bradwell on the borough found the economic benefits of more jobs would be minimal.
"Other worries raised included the potential effects of climate change, how residents on an island would be evacuated if there was a disaster, and research suggesting young children living near power stations may be more susceptible to leukaemia."

Source: Colchester Daily Gazette, 7th May 2009 Concern over oysters and new nuclear...

EDF launches sale of Bradwell Added: 22 December 2009 13:45

LONDON, Nov 27 (Reuters) - EDF Energy plans to sell land at its Bradwell nuclear site in southeast England to companies planning to build new reactors in Britain, the world's biggest nuclear power generator said on Friday
French nuclear power giant EDF (EDF.PA) got some of the land at Bradwell in Essex as part of its takeover of nuclear operator British Energy in January and bought more land there at auction in April. [ID:nLT011202]

Bradwell was named in the government's recently published draft Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS) as a suitable place for utilities to build reactors over the next two decades. [ID:nL9445396]

But EDF wants to focus on building four new European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) at the Sizewell power station in Suffolk and Hinkley Point in south-west England.

"We believe the site at Bradwell ... has good potential for new build and will be attractive to potential developers of nuclear power plants," Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, director of Nuclear New Build at EDF Energy said.

"This sale process goes hand in hand with our plans and the industry's wider objectives in seeking to help address the country's long-term energy issues."

EDF is inviting "credible nuclear operators" to submit expressions of interest in the site but any sale agreement will be conditional on the final results of the NPS and on EDF Energy getting planning permission for two EPR at the nearby Sizewell.

The sale does not include the adjoining Nuclear Decommissioning Authority site of the original power station at Bradwell which being decommissioned.

(Reporting by Daniel Fineren) ((daniel.fineren@reuters.com; +44 207 542 3083; Reuters Messaging: daniel.fineren.reuters.com@reuters.net))



EDF launches Bradwell sale...

Mersea islanders hold fire Added: 22 December 2009 13:36

Islanders are holding fire over the Government’s decision to include Bradwell on its new nuclear power station shortlist.

West Mersea Town Council’s newly-formed Bradwell sub-committee wants assurances and answers to questions before deciding its next move.

Town mayor Peter Clements said members, meeting for the first time just hours before Ed Miliband’s announcement, will raise a number of issues with the nuclear authorities and environmental agencies.
Mersea islanders hold fire...

Regulatory concerns over new designs Added: 22 December 2009 13:30

British, French and Finnish nuclear regulators have all raised concerns about the safety of the new generation of nuclear power plants. The UK nuclear safety regulator (HSE ND), the French nuclear regulator (ASN), and the Finnish nuclear regulator (STUK) have all raised issues with AREVA regarding the control and instrumentation (C&I) systems of its flagship nuclear reactor.

Get noticed online 4th Nov 2009
http://www.getnoticedonline.co.uk/news/general-news/regulators-concerns-over-power-plant-safety.html Concern over new designs...www.getnoticedonline.co.uk/news/general-news/regulators-concerns-over-power-plant-safety.html

Energy consortium buys Bradwell land Added: 22 December 2009 13:21

Energy consortium buys Sellafield land for nuclear development
A consortium comprising Iberdrola, GdF Suez and Scottish and Southern Energy have bought a site north of Sellafield in Cumbria from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) for £70 million.

The 190 hectare site lies adjacent to an existing nuclear power station, but will require significant upgrades to the grid connection to accommodate a new facility. The Cumbrian location is also far from large urban areas and other large electricity users.

However, the three partners intend to put together plans for a nuclear power station on the site with a capacity of up to 3.6 GW, sufficient to power 3.5 million homes.

If the proposals get planning permission, the consortium says it would begin construction on the site in 2015.

“We believe that some participation in new nuclear power stations makes sense and complements our core investment in renewable energy,” says Alistair Phillips-Davies of Scottish and Southern Energy.

The consortium’s plans face stiff competition from RWE npower and E.ON, who joined forces earlier this year to buy two sites at Wylfa in Wales and Olbury in Gloucestershire.

EDF Energy is also in the running, having bought British Energy last year, which owns the country’s main nuclear facilities, and a site at Bradwell in Essex. Earlier this year, Centrica took a 20% stake in the EDF nuclear venture.
Energy consortium buys Bradwell...

No burying this nuclear dilemma Added: 22 December 2009 13:17

No burying...

St Osyth wind farm gets go ahead Added: 22 November 2009 12:30

The Inquiry has stipulated that the five turbines on farm land have to be built within the next five years.

Bradwell wind farm enquiry Added: 07 November 2009 11:27

This is taking place at Three Rivers Country Club at Cold Norton. Next week it reconvenes from Tuesday 10th November. You can attend in person or write a submission. 17th November is set aside for the public.
Bradwell Wind Farm Enquiry

Watch out for November! Added: 29 October 2009 10:52

The government will release its long-awaited National Policy Statements for new nuclear build in November, climate change minister David Kidney told a CBI conference today. The Statements, which will be released for consultation, are designed to give energy firms an indication of the legislative framework they will have to comply with as they start planning the new nuclear reactors.

Business Green 22nd Oct 2009
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2251815/exclusive-nuclear-planning Watch out for November!

Can you trust local landfill? Added: 29 October 2009 10:44

The trouble is, when it comes to dumping its waste, the nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted. Regulations are flouted and scrutiny is avoided. How can we be sure that other, more dangerous waste won’t find its way into these sites? There are, after all, so many past examples.

Nuclear Reactions 20th Oct 2009

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/10/nuclear_waste_dumping_the_hist.html
Local landfill?

Crumbling nuclear legacy Added: 29 October 2009 10:37

Nuclear industry: Crumbling stores, leaky plants and the dangers of old ageBuzz up!
Digg it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/20/old-plants-affect-nuclear-safety Crumbling nuclear legacy

Local landfill sites for nuke waste Added: 29 October 2009 10:34

The government is poised to allow nuclear power generators to use ordinary landfill sites for dumping "hundreds of thousands of tons" of waste in an attempt to reduce the 73bn cost of decommissioning old reactors. The move has triggered a swath of applications around the country from big corporations trying to cash in on this potential new business, but infuriated local councils and campaign groups. The issue of waste is critical to the government as the stockpile is potentially much greater than previously thought and ministers are keen to encourage the power industry to build a new generation of reactors. Actions being considered by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and its Nuclear Decommissioning Authority include: Allowing the nuclear industry to use ordinary landfill sites for disposing of radioactive waste in a more extensive way; Allowing the main independent nuclear waste dump at Drigg in Cumbria to reduce its costs by scaling back the level of containment; Building a 1.5bn radioactive liquid-waste processing plant at Sellafield, Britain's biggest atomic site, despite a history of project cost overruns and wider safety concerns there; Extending a blueprint for dealing with existing high-level waste to cover that created by future nuclear stations an "unjustifiable" step, according to the chair of the committee that created the blueprint.

Guardian 20th Oct 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-waste-landfill-threat Landfill siteswww.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-waste-landfill-threat

Difficulties of site stakeholder groups Added: 07 October 2009 10:13

A campaigner who has fought hard to bring nuclear issues out into the open and the public domain has defended the importance of quarterly monthly meetings with nuclear bosses. Mrs Rita Holmes, a Fairlie community councillor, disagreed with a North Ayrshire Councillor who was seeking to try and limit the amount of time at the Site Stakeholder group meetings. Representatives from both Hunterston 'A' and 'B' stations attend the events as do representatives from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and Hunterston Estate. Mrs Holmes said: "It is important that we meet face to face. A meeting which lasts three hours when we only meet four times a year? It is a really serious thing we are talking about here. Nobody is forcing people to be here. The people come from the community councils because they are interested in the power station and what is happening and we are here on behalf of the communities where we live."

Largs & Milport Weekly News 3rd Ocr 2009
http://www.largsandmillportnews.com/news/roundup/articles/2009/10/03/392502-we-need-to-quiz-nuclear-bosses/ Difficulties of SSGs

Sizewell protestors in court Added: 07 October 2009 10:07

Five people charged in connection with a protest at Sizewell B nuclear power station were yesterday acquitted in court on a legal technicality. Lowestoft Magistrates' Court had heard how a group of four women and one man had chained themselves together, blocking an approach road to workers, on July 24 last year. The power station went into a full lock down as a result of the protestors' actions.

East Anglian Daily Press 29th Sept 2009
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=NewsSplash&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED29%20Sep%202009%2018%3A15%3A49%3A320 Sizewell protestors

Sizewell protesters in court Added: 30 September 2009 17:40

THE head of security at Sizewell B nuclear power station told the court on Monday how he arrived at work to find five protestors chained together and blocking an approach road to workers. Philip Perry told Lowestoft Magistrates' Court that he arrived at the scene just before 8.30am on July 24, 2008, to find four women and a man locked together on the road, which he said was on private land owned by British Energy.

Lowestoft Journal 29th Sept 2009
http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/content/lowestoftjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=LOWOnline&category=NEWS&tBrand=lowonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED29%20Sep%202009%2008%3A52%3A49%3A280 Sizewell protesters in court

Hooray for Gunfleet! Added: 21 August 2009 12:16

The first group of wind turbines off Gunfleet Sands has just started producing electricity. Very rewarding, after all the campaigning we undertook some years ago.

Vigil against nuclear plant Added: 11 August 2009 10:31

'Vigil' protest against N-plant


Bradwell is a pretty awful site for a new nuclear power station. What we're trying to do is to draw public attention to the various elements of the damage ...

East Anglian Daily Times 10th Aug 2009
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=IPED09%20Aug%202009%2019%3A07%3A35%3A000
Vigil against Bradwell

Inspectorate has safety concerns Added: 01 July 2009 09:31

Nuclear Safety

French plans to lead a nuclear power renaissance in Britain have been dealt a major blow after regulators warned of serious reservations about the safety of the reactor technology earmarked for use. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) has written to EDF and Areva, the French companies that want to build four reactors in the UK, to express their concerns about the technology. The letter sets out concerns about the control and instrumentation (C&I) of Areva’s European Pressurised Reactor (EPR). The NII’s warning will compound the view that EDF, the utility giant that is 85 per cent owned by the French state, is unlikely to meet its target of building its first UK reactor within eight years. Areva is already scrambling to produce revised plans but the design assessment phase could be delayed well past its expected completion in 2011.
Times 1st July 2009

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6613960.ece
Inspectorate safety concerns

Bradwell protestors - they are ready for you! Added: 01 July 2009 09:00

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk:80/news/4462131.Bradwell_clean_up_begins__but_legacy_continues/ Bradwell protestors...

New nuclear and waste issues Added: 01 July 2009 08:59

Letter from David Lowry: Your editorial rightly points out that we still have a chance to control our destinies if we make the right energy choices. E.On chief executive Paul Golby, is pushing for alternative generating options, including nuclear. Ed Miliband, despite being the secretary of state for energy and climate change, did not launch the UK climate projections, but did, on 15 April, launch another document, nominating 11 sites that would welcome new nuclear power plants. But one matter that has not been made clear is those communities that welcome new nuclear plants will also get a long-term store for the so-called spent nuclear fuel discharged from the reactor, and a treatment plant to encapsulate this highly radioactive waste. The favoured sites are all coastal - and the Flood Hazard Research Centre at Middlesex University says there could be problems at four of them: Bradwell, Hinkley, Dungeness and Sizewell.

Observer 28th June 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/28/letters-renewable-energy-climate-change New nuclear and waste issues

Sizewell B workers strike Added: 01 July 2009 08:50

Dozens of construction workers at Sizewell B nuclear power station have today downed tools in sympathy for the sacked workers at the Lindsey oil refinery.

East Anglian Daily Press 23rd June 2009
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED23%20Jun%202009%2012%3A51%3A19%3A640 Sizewell B workers strike

Sizewell incident Added: 01 July 2009 08:49

Consulting engineers Large & Associates were commissioned by a small NGO, Shutdown Sizewell, to examine why the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) – which is also frequently referred to as the “nuclear directorate” of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - chose not to prosecute Magnox Electric for an uncontrolled spillage of 180m³ (40,000 gallons) of radioactive pond water on 7 January 2007.

Environment Analyst 23rd June 2009
http://environment-analyst.com/1945 Sizewell incident

Inspectorate worries over safety Added: 01 July 2009 08:33

The scale of safety problems inside Britain's nuclear power stations has been revealed for the first time in a secret report obtained by the Observer that shows more than 1,750 leaks, breakdowns or other "events" over the past seven years. The damning document, written by the government's chief nuclear inspector, Mike Weightman, and released under the Freedom of Information Act, raises serious questions about the dangers of expanding the industry with a new generation of atomic plants. And it came as the managers of the UK's biggest plant, Sellafield, admitted they had finally halted a radioactive leak many believe has been going on for 50 years. The report discloses that between 2001-08 there were 1,767 safety incidents across Britain's nuclear plants. The HSE wants to streamline the assessment of new reactor designs by waiving certain aspects through a series of "exclusions". A recent consultation document circulated by Kevin Allars, director of new nuclear build generic design assessment at the HSE, suggests allowing reactor designs to be agreed with certain "exclusions" and "conditions" that could be revisited later.

Observer 21st June 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/nuclear-power-stations-inspector-watchdog Inspectorate worrieswww.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/nuclear-power-stations-inspector-watchdog

Effects of climate change on coasts Added: 01 July 2009 08:31

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2009/06/climate-change-to-hit-energy-p.html Effects of climate change on coasts

More on Sizewell incident Added: 16 June 2009 10:41

THE government should halt all plans to build more nuclear power stations with immediate effect after it was revealed that Suffolk was just hours away from a nuclear accident, campaigners claimed last night. About 10,000 gallons of radioactively contaminated water was discharged into the North Sea in January 2007 after a pipe, carrying cooling water to an engineered pond containing highly radioactive spent fuel rods, burst at Sizewell A power station on the Suffolk coast. Now an independent consultant's report has said that the power station was about ten hours away from a serious accident which could have drained the cooling pond, uncovered the old fuel and started a fire which would have released highly radioactive products. Last night, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's eastern region spokesman Mell Harrison called on the government to view the incident as a lucky escape and reconsider its position on the future of nuclear power.

Lowestoft Journal 15th June 2009
http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/content/lowestoftjournal/news/story.aspx?brand=LOWOnline&category=NEWS&tBrand=lowonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED15%20Jun%202009%2008%3A44%3A02%3A333 More on Sizewell incident

Nuclear Christmas dinner 2017 Added: 16 June 2009 10:36

Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson has taken on perhaps the UK power industry's biggest challenge: delivering a suite of four new nuclear reactors. As head of nuclear new-build at EDF Energy he has been placed firmly in the spotlight by EDF Energy chief executive Vincent de Rivaz, who promised - conditions being right - that the first reactor would be in place in time for the British public to cook their Christmas dinners in 2017. EDF Energy's first reactor will be at Hinkley Point and the second probably at Sizewell. The company also bought additional land at Bradwell in Essex, and this is its "reserve" site. A four-reactor programme is ambitious, but Cadoux-Hudson argues that in practice it brings big benefits. It is clear that despite the work put in by government and industry in the past few years there are still hurdles to clear to ensure new nuclear is built.

Utility Week 15th June 2009

http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/features/interviews/the-hopes-and-fears-of-edfs-ma.php
Nuclear Christmas dinner

Shared knowledge helps Bradwell decommissioning Added: 09 June 2009 10:08

Committed teamwork across the Magnox South sites has enabled a significant step in hazard reduction at Bradwell, with the successful preparations and partial drain down of the centre bay cooling pond at the end of March. Bradwell team...

Letter to DECC regarding new build Added: 02 June 2009 09:12

Dear Adam,

We have come across a quote in the Guardian of 17 May from DECC:

The DECC said it was taking the justification process very seriously and did not
accept that Miliband was compromised, but it left the door ajar to allow for a
change of tack. "There's an open consultation under way and thus far we don't
believe there's also a need for an inquiry, but we'll keep that under review," a
spokesman said. "The secretary of state's role in it is perfectly reasonable and
he'll approach it in an open-minded and fair manner."

This group's response to the new build consultation was a request for an Inquiry, that a highly centralised decision from a serving Minister was not appropriate for such a big commitment, and that once Justification has been granted, it is very difficult to reverse.

If the press quote is right, we are dismayed by the complacent tone of the Department's thinking. At the very least, in response to many who have expressed unhappiness with the proposed arrangements, we would expect a serious study to explore the pros and cons. We would like to see the work that has been done in order to reach the decision to leave "the door ajar".

We would therefore be grateful if you could forward us this information.

Best wishes,

Val Mainwood
Spokeswoman
Bradwell for Renewable Energy

www.brare.co.uk

New nuclear prospects and waste fears Added: 27 May 2009 14:22

dwell: Power giants with nuclear ambition
John Perfect newsdesk@essexchronicle.co.uk
398 words
7 May 2009
Essex Chronicle Series , Page: 4

French-owned power firm EDF has stepped in to buy a huge parcel of land at
Bradwell as major power consortiums jockey for position to be among the
first to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.

An online auction for the land declared surplus at three sites by the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) netted £387 million.

EDF Development Company Ltd successfully bid for 493 acres of land at
Bradwell, where the NDA is currently decommissioning the old Magnox nuclear
power station.

Acting chief executive of the NDA Richard Waite said: "This complex process
started in March 2008 when the NDA requested expressions of interest.

"The sale of these three sites is worth up to £387 million which the NDA
will use to help fund the cost of decommissioning and further its core
mission."

The Government has listed Bradwell among 11 possible sites for new nuclear
power stations.

Further moves are expected next year after the Government produces its
nuclear national policy and consults on all the possible sites .

An NDA spokesman said: " The actual sale was hugely successful. We expected
it to go on for a couple of weeks but it lasted seven. It was like a high
roller version of eBay."

EDF already owns land at Bradwell, acquired in a takeover of British
Energy. The company's preference is for developing Sizewell, Suffolk, and
Hinkley Point, Somerset, with four new reactors, so the Bradwell land could
be sold on to a new power company.

An EDF spokesman said: "We support the Government's objective to have more
than one participant in new nuclear in the UK.

"Subject to various conditions being met, including the level of progress
at Sizewell and Hinkley Point, EDF Energy has agreed to sell its land at
Bradwell.

"It will be important to have a single combined site at Bradwell, for
whoever might develop the site."

Meanwhile there are concerns over nuclear sites storage.

In a letter to the Chronicle, members of the independent Nuclear Waste
Advisory Associates say: "When the new reactor sites were announced the
minister said 'I want to listen to what people have to say about these
nominations.'

"We would encourage local residents to make representations about plans to
convert your local community into a radioactive waste storage site for a
century and more."

The prettiest building in Essex? Added: 27 May 2009 13:53

Letter from Pete Roche: Just when we really need our architectural
profession to be designing zero-carbon houses and helping to reduce
carbon emissions from existing buildings by 80 per cent, Mark Fresson
(Opinion, 21 May) wants to design "iconic" nuclear reactors. Such a
focus on dangerous, waste-producing, weapons-proliferating technology
is diverting attention from what we really need to be doing to tackle
climate change.

Scotsman 23rd May 2009
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Wrong-focus.5296478.jp Prettiest building in Essex?

Debate called for Bradwell dangers Added: 27 May 2009 13:44

AN anti-nuclear group has called for an open debate with the
Government over plans for a new Bradwell power station. The Blackwater
Against New Nuclear Group has made detailed submissions as part of a
national consultation. The Mersea-based group has argued Bradwell
should be taken off the Government's list of possible nuclear sites
because it is vulnerable to flooding. The group also argues Mersea, a couple of miles across the Blackwater Estuary from Bradwell, would be hard to evacuate in an emergency. It also cites the potential
impact on the island's oyster industry and risk to health caused by
emissions.

Braintree and Witham Times 19th May 2009

http://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/countywide/4378028.Nuclear_protest_group_calls_for_a_debate/ Debate - Bradwellwww.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/countywide/4378028.Nuclear_protest_group_calls_for_a_debate/

Safety fears will be resolved Added: 27 May 2009 12:52

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk:80/news/localnews/4362219.Safety_fears_for_new_Bradwell_build_will_be_resolved/
SAFETY fears surrounding construction of a new nuclear power station at Bradwell will be ironed out by the time plans are given the go ahead. Bradwell safety fears will be resolved

MP fears nuclear plant fish threat Added: 27 May 2009 12:49

MP fears nuclear plant fish threat
The Gazette - Colchester,Essex,UK
Bernard Jenkin, MP for North Essex, is to press Government ministers on the effects a new power station at Bradwell would have on the marine ecology of the ...
MP fears fish threat

British Energy visits Maldon at last Added: 27 May 2009 12:36

Bradwell

RESIDENTS in Maldon got the chance to hear about a future nuclear
power station in Bradwell. Nigel Knee, from EDF Energy, addressed
members of the public at a Maldon Town Council meeting. The town had
missed out on a round of consultations about the proposals late last
year. Fifty people heard Mr Knee and asked questions during the
meeting. Mr Knee said Bradwell remained a candidate for a new power
station. He said: â?oWhen we were talking to local communities, we
were saying there were a number of sites available, including
Bradwell, and we still think Bradwell is a good idea.

North Essex Gazette 29th Apr 2009
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/4326760.Nuclear_power_station____a_good_idea___/ British Energy visits Maldon at last

Sizewell protest Added: 27 May 2009 12:34

Protesters have held a vigil against nuclear power at a generating
station in Suffolk to mark 23 years since the Chernobyl disaster. The
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), which organised a "peaceful"
overnight protest at Sizewell said it wanted to highlight the dangers.


BBC 26th Apr 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/8019177.stm Sizewell protest

Parliamentary Question on Blackwater pollution Added: 18 May 2009 15:31

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Blackwater Estuary: Pollution
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on (i) the effects on the marine ecology of the Blackwater Estuary of chlorination of water inlet and outlet pipes at Bradwell power station, with particular reference to the native oyster population and (ii) changes to such effects arising from the construction of a new nuclear power station at Bradwell. [275213]
Huw Irranca-Davies: DEFRA has neither commissioned nor evaluated any such research. However, analysis of samples of cooling water discharges undertaken by the Environment Agency has not identified any significant issue regarding chlorine.
Detailed proposals for developing a new nuclear power station at Bradwell have yet to come forward. As a result, the Environment Agency is unable to comment on any potential changes on the marine ecology resulting from new construction at the site.

Bradwell fears over safety Added: 15 May 2009 09:48

Bradwell

SAFETY fears surrounding construction of a new nuclear power station
at Bradwell will be ironed out by the time plans are given the go
ahead. Concerns emerged for a new build in the village after recently
leaked documents from the Finnish nuclear safety agency (STUK) showed
problems with the design of important safety systems, and a lack of
co-operation in resolving these concerns at a site in Finland.

Maldon Standard 13th May 2009

http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/localnews/4362219.Safety_fears_for_new_Bradwell_build_will_be_resolved/ Bradwell fears over safety...

You have until midnight tonight 14 May Added: 14 May 2009 12:01

...to give the Government your views on new build at Bradwell. We have sent a detailed Group response. But even more valuable is a response from you as individuals, however short. You can make a comment direct on: www.nuclearpowersiting.decc.gov.uk

Click on Contact Us (in top right hand corner). On the page that comes up you will see nuclearsitingpubliccomments@dialoguebydesign.com Click on this and an e-mail box should come up.

And pass this on to as many people as poss! Click for your say!

Fishermen fear for industry with Bradwell 2 Added: 08 May 2009 09:37

FEARS have been raised Colchesterâ?Ts world-famous oyster beds could
be decimated if a new nuclear power station is built at Bradwell. To
cool the new generation of stations, 72,000 cubic litres of water
would be pumped in and out of the Blackwater Estuary every second â?"
more than twice the volume needed at the old Bradwell power station.
And campaigners believe the warm water pumped back could wipe out some
sections of Colchesterâ?Ts native oysters, beloved since Roman times.

North Essex Gazette 7th May 2009
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/4348137.Could_nuclear_power_plant_spell_end_for_oyster_beds_/ Fishermen fear new nuclear...

CBC Meeting May 5 2009 - 3 minute speech Added: 06 May 2009 10:39

What info does CBC need in order to decide over new build?

· Is it safe for the environment?

This is a heavily stretched environment. I have read of the research you have undertaken. However, given the complexities and uncertainties over geomorphology, climate change and estuarine behaviour, you are not yet in a position to quantify the risk and effects.

Although the new generation of reactors are more efficient, an unfortunate by-product is of spent fuel rods that have to remain on site for at least a hundred years. Mr Knee of British Energy did not mention this. The Council needs to consider the ramifications of this. No work has been done on this to date.

· Is it safe for people?

Mr Urquhart has provided evidence of potential abnormal health patterns in the Bradwell area, together with evidence of missing data. I am really glad that the Panel has brought in the relevant bodies to look at this material. Again, without a full investigation, you are not yet in a position to quantify the risks.

Regarding emergency planning, there has been a history of complacency and ineptitude. One exercise recently became a laughing stock because Sizewell was contacted by mistake.

In this day and age it is shocking even to consider siting any industry with the potential to endanger the public when Mersea Islanders have only one exit route that is barred by high tide. If you are to consider recommending new build, there needs to be plans in place that show how the Islanders can be evacuated. Information to prove that the emergency plan is indeed efficient should contain the following issues:

-routine information about the state of alert at the pant
-details of the “reference” case which would trigger an evacuation
-the “dose” this would give to local people
-the number of people they would estimate would be affected
-how to deal with the many visitors, especially in the summer?
-what is the radiological composition of the plume that would be in the reference case
-what is the most extreme (beyond reference)
-what they do about the other radionuclides which people might ingest or inhale. Potassium iodide tablets only protect against thyroid cancer
-education in schools, local groups, etc on what to do in such an event

Again, the Councill is not yet in a position to quantify whether the risks will be worth it for the population surrounding the Blackwater Estuary.

The report you have produced shows a genuine attempt to get to grips with the difficult and seemingly intractable issues surrounding new build. Much of the work currently undertaken is work in progress. Looking at Councillor Bouckley’s list of concerns on 3 March, as listed at the beginning of the report, I see no answers anywhere that can allay these fears.

Report from Colchester Borough Council meeting May 5 2009 Added: 06 May 2009 10:37

I was unable to get to the meeting at the start, so missed the five three-minute speeches by members of BANGG (there was a good public turnout) and the start of the Panel discussion. However I was allowed my say.

Mention was made that this first report is definitely work in progress, and there will be more opportunities to comment, as this is an ongoing process. It is not the Panel who will make the decision, but the Cabinet. One member suggested that the nuclear industry should be “guilty until proven innocent” and the report should have more teeth. However others felt that the issues should be laid out for Cabinet to decide.

As for details, there was need to look further at the projected warming of the waters on the plume of the Estuary. It was felt there were no socio-economic benefits for Mersea Islanders. It was suggested that the Cabinet commission a study on the ecosystem. Essex University is doing some work. I am sending the Panel the comments of John Urquhart to responses on the health data the HPA supplied. You will see that they have made a big mistake by suggesting that the German report is smaller than the COMARE one – in fact it is the other way round.

The public can make their views known to the Cabinet on the Council website. Mersea Islanders have all been distributed leaflets on how to comment on the public consultation.

My conclusion was that the Panel was trying to do the best job they could. One concern is that they gave the impression that progress could be leisurely, which, according to Government policy, it is not. My worry would be that the Council could be shoehorned into a decision, as of course there are powerful interests at large.

Sizewell Added: 04 May 2009 10:11

THE public are being invited to comment on the way Sizewell B stores
its spent radioactive fuel. For the last 14 years the nuclear power
station has stored its spent waste in containers in a pond filled with
water, but by 2015 this will have reached its full capacity. It is
therefore looking at four alternatives, which are open to public
consultation. These include a second wet store like the one used at
the moment, a dry store underground, a dry cask store which would be
above ground or reprocessing when the fuel is processed to be used
again.

East Anglian Daily Times 2nd May

Nuclear task group to face Colchester Borough Council Added: 04 May 2009 09:48

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk:80/news/4336687.Nuclear_plant_task_group_to_face_council/ Nuclear task group to face Colchester council

EDF gets Bradwell Added: 29 April 2009 15:29

EDF has successfully won the auction of NDA land: http://business.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6192107.ece EDF buys land at Bradwell

Bradwell nominated for new nuclear Added: 15 April 2009 08:37

Have your say on potential sites for new nuclear power stations

Further to our update of the 20th March, the Government has today published a list of sites that have been accepted into the Strategic Siting Assessment process and that could be potential hosts to a new nuclear power station in the UK . Details of the announcement can be found at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/news/.

Members of the public have the opportunity to comment on the nominated sites for one month until 14th May.

These sites will be assessed by Government using the information received during the public comment window, the advice of specialists such as independent regulators and others. Government set the criteria it would use to make its assessment in January following public consultation (the Government Response is available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page47143.html ). Nominated sites will also be subject to an Appraisal of Sustainability and any appropriate assessments under the Habitats Regulations.

Following this assessment period, sites that are found to be suitable for the development of new nuclear power stations will be listed in the draft Nuclear National Policy statement which will be published in the Autumn, and will undergo consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

To view the nominations and for further details on how to comment on nominations, how nominations will be assessed, and the timetable for the Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) go to www.nuclearpowersiting.decc.gov.uk

Office for Nuclear Development

EDF spying Added: 13 April 2009 09:40

EDF is hoping to buy land at Bradwell for building a new nuclear power station. This is the sort of outfit it is..

Senior staff at state-owned energy company, EDF, have been charged
with engaging in industrial espionage against Greenpeace France.

Money.co.uk 2nd Apr 2009
http://www.money.co.uk/article/1003320-senior-staff-at-french-nuclear-giant-edf-accused-of-spying-on-greenpeace.htm EDF spying...

EDF - can we trust these people? Added: 01 April 2009 10:50

EDF look like being the builders of a new nuclear power plant at Bradwell. They don't like the opposition, it seems:

Two senior executives at French energy company Electricite de France
SA (EDF.FR) have been charged on suspicion of industrial espionage
against the environmental group Greenpeace, a judicial official said
Tuesday. The EDF security executives were charged on March 24 with
conspiring to hack into a computer system, the official said,
confirming a report on the French Web site Mediapart. Greenpeace
France's former campaign director Yannick Jadot said investigators
were probing a break-in on one of his computers, saying that EDF
"appears clearly to be involved."

Fox News 31st Mar 2009

http://forexdaily.org.ru/Dow_Jones/page.htm?id=517046 EDF - do we trust?

Bradwell - opinion divided Added: 29 March 2009 11:31

Working with owners EDF Energy, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
has nominated the site as a possible location for one of a new
generation of nuclear plants. But opinion is divided as to whether
nuclear is the right choice to meet the countryâ?Ts need for
environmentally-friendly power, and if Bradwell would be the right
place. Professor Andy Blowers, chairman of Blackwater Against New
Nuclear Group, claims a new plant at Bradwell would be â?otaking a
step in the dark, while closing our eyes to perils we know aboutâ?�.

Colchester and North Essex Gazette 17th Mar 2009
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/4206817.Community_divided_over_new_nuclear_power_plan/ Bradwell - opinion divided

£200 million bid for three sites, including Bradwell Added: 29 March 2009 10:56

POWER COMPANIES have agreed to pay at least £200m for land to build
nuclear power stations in Britain, a much higher price than the
government expected. The bidding went through the £200m figure last
week in an eBay-style online auction being run by the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA). The government agency owns land near
three old reactor sites that are being sold to would-be developers of
new stations. Such a high level of interest underlines the
attractiveness of nuclear energy at a time when the renewables sector,
particularly offshore wind, is faltering. Power companies warned the
government this month that several big offshore wind projects would be
scrapped unless they get immediate government aid. Building work is
not expected to begin before 2013, making the governmentâ?Ts intention
to have new nuclear stations up and running by 2017 appear difficult
to achieve.

Sunday Times 29th Mar 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/construction_and_property/article5992467.ece £200 million bid...

eBay-style auction for Bradwell Added: 16 March 2009 11:35

THE government will this week launch an eBay-style auction of land for up to six new nuclear reactors. The process was expected to kick off last week, but was delayed. At least two consortiums of European power companies are expected to bid for the sites at Wylfa on Anglesey, Bradwell in Essex, and Oldbury, South Gloucestershire. German energy giants Eon and RWE Npower have come together to form one bidding group, while GDF-Suez, Iberdrola and Scottish & Southern have teamed up in a second consortium.

The electronic bidding process will be akin to the 2000 government auction of mobile-phone licences and is expected to net several hundred million pounds for the government. The sites are owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.


Times Online
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/article5908351.ece
eBay-style auction for Bradwell

Auctions for Bradwell and other sites Added: 10 March 2009 11:06

Brare has received a letter from the NDA detailing its changed plans for site nominations: "Due to the limited amount of time to generate the nomination and wishing to eliminate any confusion that could result from multiple nominations at each site, NDA is working with other parties to gather the information required for a single nomination."

See the Times below:
Fresh doubts emerged yesterday over the handling of Britain's drive
to build a new generation of nuclear power stations after the delay of
a highly sensitive auction of three sites earmarked for construction
of reactors. An online bidding system for the three government-owned
sites had been scheduled to start last week, according to industry
sources. At the eleventh hour, however, the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA), the government body overseeing the auction, postponed
the launch. An NDA spokesman said last night that the auction remained
on track and the online bidding system would begin â?overy soonâ?�. He
added that the overall timeframe for the bid had not changed, with the
three winners to be announced by the end of the month. Any evidence
that the auction had been mishandled could present an opportunity for
a legal challenge from those opposed to new reactors in Britain.

Times 10th Mar 2009

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article5877484.ece NDA site nominations

This could be Bradwell too Added: 10 March 2009 10:55

Scientists will warn this week that rising sea levels, triggered by
global warming, pose a far greater danger to the planet than
previously estimated. There is now a major risk that many coastal
areas around the world will be inundated by the end of the century
because Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting faster than
previously estimated. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
- when it presented its most up-to-date report on the likely impact of
global warming in 2007 - concluded that sea-level rises of between 20
and 60 centimetres would occur by 2100. Revisions now suggest
sea-level rises could easily top a metre by 2100 - a figure that is
backed by the US Geological Survey, which this year warned that they
could reach as much as 1.5 metres. The Sizewell B nuclear plant has
been built on the Suffolk coast, a site that has been earmarked for
the construction of several more nuclear plants. However, Sizewell
will certainly be affected by rising sea levels. Engineers say they
can build concrete walls that will keep out the water throughout the
working lives of these new plants. But that is not enough. Nuclear
plants may operate for 50 years, but it could take hundreds of years
to decommission them. By that time, who knows what sea-level rises and
what kinds of inundations the country will be experiencing?

Observer 8th Mar 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/08/climate-change-flooding This could be Bradwell

People more opposed to new nuclear than realised Added: 26 February 2009 15:55

Letters (1) Pete Roche: Opinion polls do not tell the whole story
about opposition to nuclear power. Recent qualitative research
suggests that support even in close proximity to existing reactors can
be quite fragile, with many only willing to accept nuclear power
reluctantly if it is shown to be essential for energy security and
tackling climate change. Another academic study found the UK
government had deliberately skewed the results of its last
consultation exercise by burying the fact that nuclear power can only
make a small contribution to reducing carbon emissions.(2) There is no
mention by Mr Young of last July's report by the Nuclear Safety
Advisory Committee that decommissioning at Sellafield and other ageing
nuclear plants has been delayed by poor performance, delays in
developing waste processing and budget restrictions. Perhaps he feels
it can be ignored because in the interim the committee has been
quietly disbanded, thus removing a source of independent opposition to
the government's plans for expansion. (3) What is plan B if we cannot
operate the nuclear power stations? It has become quite well known
that in France, where nuclear power stations provide a major
contribution to the energy mix, during the 2003 heat wave, fission
plants could not get rid of waste heat fast enough and the authorities
had to close down generating stations. In a warming world, could this
happen quite often

Herald 21st Feb 2009
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2490729.0.culture_change_not_technology_is_the_answer_to_the_worlds_energy_shortfall.php Nuclear opposition

MP favours new nuclear at Bradwell Added: 26 February 2009 15:53

A NEW nuclear power station would be a good thing for the Maldon district.

That is the opinion of Maldon MP John Whittingdale, who has said he strongly believes investing in new stations is important for the future.

The Standard spoke to Mr Whittingdale following confirmation by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) that Bradwell will be nominated as a site for new nuclear development.

He claimed the possibility of a new power station would be beneficial to the Maldon district in a number of ways.

He said: “Bradwell has had a nuclear power station for 40 years, it’s been good for the local economy and in the main, it (a new station) would be of benefit to the district.

“If we are to meet targets on climate change and security of energy supply, nuclear is the only way.

“Bradwell is still one of the major employers in the district and creates a lot of business in the Dengie Peninsula, but the decommissioning will come to an end and without a new station it will suffer badly.”

Mr Whittingdale said he has sent a survey to every home in his constituency to get people’s thoughts about a new power station in the village. He is just starting to get some back.

He added: “There is a considerable level of support so far. The benefits would be the same as from the old one - employment, income and wealth for the local community.

“People believe it would be a good thing and rather more beneficial than a wind farm which had very little support.”

Land next to the site is up for sale and bidders have been expressing their interest in the 493 hectare site, causing speculation and fear among protestors who oppose a new station being built.

The new owner will be known after an online auction which is expected to be held by the end of March.

Other suitable sites nominated by the NDA include Sellafield in Cumbria, Oldbury in Gloucestershire, and Wylfa in Anglesey.


(Maldon & Burnham Standard)

And the answer Added: 24 February 2009 11:19

Thank you for your letterdated 23 January 2009 outlining your concerns regarding a possible new build nuclear facility in Bradwell, Essex.

I would point out that on 20 January 2009 the only thing our parent company Iberdrola and Scottish and Southern Energy plc announced was their intention to form a joint venture to enable them to participate in the UK's nuclear newbuild programme. No specific sites were named either at that time, or indeed subsequently. I confirm, however that your comments have been noted.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) Nick Holton [CEO]

Firm fined for radioactive leaks Added: 17 February 2009 14:35

Bradwell nuclear power station is no longer generating electricity
A nuclear power station operator has been fined £250,000 for allowing radioactive waste to seep into the ground over a 14-year period.

Waste leaked from a sump in a decontamination unit at Bradwell power station in Essex between 1990 and 2004.

Magnox Electric was convicted of breaking legislation governing the disposal of radioactive waste.

The company was also ordered to pay £150,000 costs following the trial at Chelmsford Crown Court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7894018.stm firm fined for leaks

Floods, erosion, earthquake - no problem Added: 16 February 2009 11:35

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/earth/energy/nuclearpower/4362021/Floods-erosion-or-earthquake-risk-will-not-be-a-bar-to-nuclear-power-sites.html

Such natural forces will not deter new nuclear build at Bradwell Floods erosion earthquake...

EA press release on Bradwell prosecution Added: 09 February 2009 12:11

Today at Chelmsford Crown Court, after a trial lasting five weeks, Magnox Electric Limited were convicted by a jury of three offences relating to unauthorised discharges from a sump at Bradwell nuclear power station. His Honour Judge Peter Fenn adjourned sentence of the company until 17th February 2009 upon which date the company will also be sentenced for two offences to which they had earlier pleaded guilty of failing to maintain plant, namely, a sump in the decontamination bay at the site for a period between 1st January 1993 and 4th February 2004.

During the course of the trial, the jury at Chelmsford Crown Court heard there were leaks of liquid radioactive waste in and around a sump at the former Bradwell Nuclear Power Station, Southminster, Essex on a number of occasions between March 1990 and the discovery of the leak in February 2004.

As part of its normal regulation of nuclear sites, the Environment Agency monitors the environment outside a site’s boundaries. Over the period of the leak no pollution of the type which would have been caused by it was detected and the leak did not cause any risk to local people or the environment.

The court was told that the breaches came to light because of a voluntary disclosure by Magnox to the Nuclear Regulation Group (NRG) of the Environment Agency and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 2004.

Staff working to clear sludge from the sump realised that when full of water, levels in the sump fell and when empty, the sump was backfilling by a couple of inches a day. A pump was immediately brought in and all liquid and sludge carefully removed from the sump.

Prosecuting on behalf of the Environment Agency, Mark Harris told the court that prior to the work to clear sludge, no inspection of the sump had been carried out and no tests had been undertaken to check the integrity of the sump.

He said liquid leaked onto the ground because of a combination of poor original design when the sump was modified in 1976 and the lack of any routine inspection and maintenance afterwards until the leak was discovered.

Magnox Electric Ltd maintained that all the contamination took place between 1988 and 1990, but an Environment Agency expert stated that scum marks on the wall of the sump indicated that leakage occurred over many years.

Raymond Jepps, a former site manager for Bradwell told investigating officers that no routine maintenance or inspection would have been undertaken on the sump before February 2004 but it now was.

Phil Heaton, Team Leader of the Environment Agency’s Nuclear Regulation Group said: ‘This has been a complex investigation for the Environment Agency. We have demonstrated that the company failed to appreciate, properly or at all, that the sump was part of the system for discharging relevant waste, and so failed to take the proper precautions.

‘Our prosecution of the company sends a clear message to the nuclear industry that we require the highest standards of operation at all such sites and will take firm action, even if the environment beyond a site’s boundaries are not affected.’


· MAGNOX Electric plc was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay £28,000 costs at Taunton Crown Court On June 1 2001 after pleading guilty to six offences relating to unauthorised discharges of radioactive waste from its nuclear power stations at Bradwell, Essex and Hinkley Point A, Bridgwater, Somerset.



Magnox Electric Ltd had denied but were found guilty of:

Count 2

Statement of Offence

Disposing of radioactive waste on its premises otherwise than in accordance with an authorisation, contrary to sections 13(1) and 32(1)(a) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

Particulars of Offence

MAGNOX ELECTRIC LIMITED (formerly Nuclear Electric plc), between the 31st day of March 1990 and the 1st day of January 1993, disposed of radioactive waste on its premises at Bradwell Nuclear Power Station, Bradwell on Sea, Southminster, Essex CM0 7HP and which are used for the purposes of its undertaking, otherwise than in accordance with an authorisation granted in that behalf, namely by discharging waste to ground from leaks in and around a sump in the decontamination bay at the licensed site.


Count 5

Statement of Offence

Disposing of radioactive waste on its premises otherwise than in accordance with an authorisation, contrary to sections 13(1) and 32(1)(a) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

Particulars of Offence


MAGNOX ELECTRIC LIMITED (formerly Nuclear Electric plc), between the 1st day of January 1993 and the 18th Day of December 2002, disposed of radioactive waste on its premises at Bradwell Nuclear Power Station, Bradwell on Sea, Southminster, Essex CM0 7HP and which are used for the purposes of its undertaking, otherwise than in accordance with an authorisation granted in that behalf, namely by discharging waste to ground from leaks in and around a sump in the decontamination bay at the licensed site.


Count 8

Statement of Offence

Disposing of radioactive waste on its premises otherwise than in accordance with an authorisation, contrary to sections 13(1) and 32(1)(a) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

Particulars of Offence


MAGNOX ELECTRIC LIMITED (formerly Nuclear Electric plc), between the 18th day of December 2002 and the 4th day of February 2004, disposed of radioactive waste on its premises at Bradwell Nuclear Power Station, Bradwell on Sea, Southminster, Essex CM0 7HP and which are used for the purposes of its undertaking, otherwise than in accordance with an authorisation granted in that behalf, namely by discharging waste to ground from leaks in and around a sump in the decontamination bay at the licensed site.


Magnox Electric Ltd pleaded guilty to:

Count A
Statement of offence

Contravening the conditions of an authorisation for the disposal of radioactive waste, contrary to sections 13(1) and 32(1) (c) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

Particulars of offence

MAGNOX ELECTRIC LIMITED (formerly Nuclear Electric plc), between the 1st day of January 1993 and the 18th day of December 2002, having been authorised for the disposal of radioactive wastes from its premises at Bradwell Nuclear Power Station, Bradwell on Sea, Southminster, Essex CMO 7HP by a certificate issued under section 6(1) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, now section 13(1) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, and which came into force on 1 January 1993, failed to comply with a limitation and condition subject to which that authorisation had effect, namely condition 4 thereof, by failing to maintain and keep in good repair the sump and associated pipework in the decontamination bay at the licensed site.

Count B
Statement of offence

Contravening the conditions of an authorisation for the disposal of radioactive waste, contrary to sections 13(1) and 32(1) (c) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

Particulars of offence

MAGNOX ELECTRIC LIMITED (formerly Nuclear Electric plc), between the 18th day of December 2002 and the 4th day of February 2004, having been authorised for the disposal of radioactive wastes from its premises at Bradwell Nuclear Power Station, Bradwell on Sea, Southminster, Essex CMO 7HP by a certificate issued under section 13(1) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, and which came into force on 18 December 2002, failed to comply with a limitation and condition subject to which that authorisation had effect, namely condition 3(b) of Schedule 1 thereof, by failing to maintain and keep in good repair the sump and associated pipework in the decontamination bay at the licensed site.



ENDS


Media enquiries: Contact Rita Penman or Catherine Burbage on 01733 464357 (during normal office hours, also for emergency service only, 24 hours).

All Environment Agency news releases, both regional and national, can be found on our web site: www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Notes for editors

For interview requests, a case briefing and image contact the press office.

The Environment Agency is the leading organisation for protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales. We are responsible for making sure that air, land and water are looked after by today’s society, so that tomorrow’s generations inherit a cleaner, healthier world.

New reactors more deadly Added: 08 February 2009 18:06

New nuclear reactors planned for Britain will produce many times more
radiation than previous reactors that could be rapidly released in an
accident, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. The revelations â?"
based on information buried deep in documents produced by the nuclear
industry itself â?" calls into doubt repeated assertions that the new
European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) will be safer than the old atomic
power stations they replace. Instead they suggest that a reactor or
nuclear waste accident, although less likely to happen, could have
even more devastating consequences in future; one study suggests that
nearly twice as many people could die.

Independent on Sunday 8th Feb 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/new-nuclear-plants-will-produce-far-more-radiation-1604051.html

New reactors waste more deadly Added: 08 February 2009 18:05

New nuclear reactors planned for Britain will produce many times more
radiation than previous reactors that could be rapidly released in an
accident, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. The revelations â?"
based on information buried deep in documents produced by the nuclear
industry itself â?" calls into doubt repeated assertions that the new
European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) will be safer than the old atomic
power stations they replace. Instead they suggest that a reactor or
nuclear waste accident, although less likely to happen, could have
even more devastating consequences in future; one study suggests that
nearly twice as many people could die.

Independent on Sunday 8th Feb 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/new-nuclear-plants-will-produce-far-more-radiation-1604051.html New reactors waste more deadly

Vultures circle Added: 08 February 2009 18:02

GDF-Suez yesterday became the latest French company to set its sights
on the UKâ?Ts nuclear industry when it unveiled plans for a joint
venture to help to build new reactors in Britain. GDF-Suez, 35 per
cent-owned by the French Government, said that it had formed a
partnership with Iberdrola, the Spanish owner of ScottishPower.
Together, they plan to build at least two new reactors in the UK on
existing nuclear sites that are due to be sold by the Government.
GDF-Suez and Iberdrola are expected to each control a 40 per cent
stake in the venture. Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) is expected to
join as junior partner, with 20 per cent. Vatenfall, the Swedish
utility group, is in talks with GDF-Suez and Iberdrola about entering
alongside SSE as a junior equity partner.

Times 5th Feb 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article5663532.ece Vultures circle...

Bradwell leak Added: 07 February 2009 10:21

A nuclear power station operator in Essex has been found guilty of
allowing radioactive waste to seep from a sump in a decontamination
unit for 14 years. Magnox Electric denied four charges of allowing
unauthorised disposal of radioactive waste between 1990 and 2004 at
Bradwell nuclear power station. At Chelmsford Crown Court the firm was
convicted of breaching laws governing the disposal of radioactive
waste.

BBC 6th Feb 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7875870.stm Bradwell leak

Bradwell found guilty of leaks Added: 07 February 2009 10:19

The nuclear power industry suffered an embarrassing blow today when
the operator of the Bradwell-on-Sea plant was found guilty of allowing
a radio­active leak to continue for 14 years. Magnox Electric Ltd,
the operator of the site, denied some of the allegations but was found
guilty of breaking the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 over the way it
dealt with waste on the premises.

Guardian 7th Feb 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/06/bradwell-operator-guilty Bradwell found guilty

Inspector: we can't check everything Added: 02 February 2009 12:08

The most senior figure in nuclear safety has defended the regulation
of an atomic power station barely 50 miles from the centre of London
that leaked radioactive material for 14 years. Mike Weightman, chief
inspector at the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, said it was not
possible to "inspect or check every feature of a complex plant". But
as soon as the leak in the sump of one of the Magnox reactors at
Bradwell-on-Sea was discovered the safety body did all it could to
ensure that the cause of the problem was identified and dealt with, he
added.

Guardian 2nd Feb 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/02/nuclear-power-leak Bradwell leak

Another use for Ribena Added: 30 January 2009 09:47

In the bleak winter of despair that has set in, there is nothing like a glass of Ribena to prove a point: http://www.gazette-news.co.uk:80/news/4085482.Essex__A_cordial_approach_to_explaining_N_waste/ Another use for Ribena

Floods, erosion no barrier to nuclear Added: 29 January 2009 10:48

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/4362021/Floods-erosion-or-earthquake-risk-will-not-be-a-bar-to-nuclear-power-sites.html

Revised criteria unveiled at the launch of the two month process to award the contracts saw a lifting of an outright ban on siting new nuclear power stations in areas susceptible to earthquakes.

Instead, the likelihood of an earthquake in a nuclear region will be assessed by local planners.

In addition, a high risk of flood, damage to an environmental protection area and potential threat of coastal erosion may be overlooked if measures will be taken to make good or minimise the problem.
Floods, earthquakes? No problem

Quake ban "lifted" Added: 28 January 2009 11:24

Never mind that Bradwell is on the earthquake fault of the biggest earthquake to hit the British Isles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7854431.stm Bradwell quake fault OK

New build meeting at Mersea Added: 24 January 2009 17:09

EDF buys British Energy - but pockets of opposition are emerging

With the purchase of British Energy by Electricite de France (EDF) the battlefront over nuclear energy is now focused firmly on the proposed sites. Bradwell in Essex is one of the sites where it is proposed to have a mega nuclear reactor and storage of highly radioactive spent fuel on site.

In an innovative - and well timed - move, Colchester Borough Council's Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Panel, held their meeting in public in West Mersea, which is situated on the Blackwater estuary directly opposite and downwind of Bradwell. This could be the beginning of a process of genuine public engagement which other communities might copy.

In a packed hall, many anxieties were aired and questions asked by both residents and Councillors. The Panel engaged in a discussion of the various issues with experts: Andy Blowers, OBE (Professor of Social Sciences, The Open University, and member of the Government's first Committee on Radioactive Waste Management - CoRWM), Steve Thomas (Professor of Energy, University of Greenwich), Robin Grimes (Professor of Materials Physics, Imperial College) and Dr. Bill Nuttall (Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the Judge Business School, Cambridge). Representatives of the regulators and one from the Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) were also present.

During the meeting, one thing became clear, to the dismay of all there. Adam Dawson, of the Government's Office for Nuclear Development (set up on 18 September by BERR), confirmed that "new stations will have to store waste on site for 100 years" from the start of operations. In addition it was confirmed that the wastes from the old Bradwell station would not be cleared up for 100 years. Given that there is at present no solution for the long-term management of these wastes, the Blackwater faces the prospect of a high-level rate of radioactivity on a site that is liable to inundation, until at least well into the 22nd century.

Among the many other anxieties raised during the evening were:

the illogicality of having a new power station on a site which is a long way from the centre of demand - London;

the costs and problems of defending a site that is liable to sea-level rise, flooding, storm surges and retreating coast;

the volumes of cooling water required for a mega station, which might require the building of cooling towers;

the impact of heating in a shallow estuary with implications for its seafood and sealife, recreation and its environmentally sensitive and protected areas;

the impact on the landscape of upgrading to new and tall pylons and the blight that these would cause over a very wide area;

the problems of emergency planning and the evacuation of Mersea Island in the event of a serious incident and the possibility that information might be given to residents too late, as happened with the radioactive leaks in France last July;

the possibility of a higher incidence of childhood cancers and effects on pregnancy in proximity to an operating power station;

concern that although the Government says there will be no subsidies for new nuclear power, the reality has always been that if new build happens, the public purse pays when things go wrong;

concerns that nuclear would provide no solution to the energy gap and have only a minimal impact on climate change, so if it was not needed anywhere, it was certainly not needed at an unsuitable site like Bradwell.

Residents were pleased at the concern shown by the Panel who listened very carefully to the issues and agreed to investigate some of these further.

After the meeting, Professor Andy Blowers, who is also the Chair of the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG), said: 'This was a significant meeting for which the Scrutiny Panel took the time to meet with people who are most anxious about a new nuclear power station. The idea of putting people and the environment at risk both now and in the far future by building a power station and high-level radioactive waste facility on a vulnerable site frankly beggars belief.'.

New Build meeting- Tollesbury Added: 24 January 2009 17:06

Bradwell New Nuclear Build Meeting in Tollesbury

The Bradwell Nuclear New Build road-show gave a presentation in Tollesbury’s Community Centre on Thursday the 13th of November. Despite the highly inconvenient time of the meeting – 2.30pm to 5.00pm – it was very well attended by an audience, much of which appeared to be firmly opposed to any new nuclear station at Bradwell.
The British Energy representatives found it difficult to deal effectively with questions about the Bradwell site: its exposure to growing risks of flooding from rising sea levels produced by global warming and tidal surges; its location in close proximity to a substantial, and growing population; and the contamination that might occur in the shallow waters of the Blackwater estuary (in contrast to open-sea sites) from any nuclear releases. It was also admitted that there was not yet any agreement on a new national depository for high-level nuclear waste. As a result, any new nuclear power station at Bradwell might have to house its high and medium level nuclear waste for a very long period of time, possibly as long as a 100 years. This contrasts with the situation regarding the old power station, which retained only low-level nuclear waste products.
British Energy’s representatives were somewhat complacent about health problems associated with the existing (now closed) nuclear power station. This attitude was challenged by those in the audience who were familiar with a recent German study that has cast serious doubt upon the earlier report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) that had sought to dispel any suggestions of a link between the station and incidences of cancer and leukaemia around the Blackwater. Claims, in BE’s literature, of the economic benefits from a new Bradwell generator were also challenged. Residents of Tollesbury and West Mersea lived too far away from Bradwell by road for any economic benefits, but were close enough (only some three to five kilometres as the ‘crow flies) to be exposed to all the risks and to any damage to property values. It is interesting, in this respect, that proposals for a new nuclear plant at Sizewell may have to be accompanied by a package of mitigation and compensation proposals.
British Energy’s representatives were able to provide some limited measures of reassurance to the audience, however. It was revealed that the electrical equipment in the generators, transformers and transmission used only fire-retardant insulation and that the fire-extinguishing systems employed water rather than potentially toxic chemicals. The director of the Sizewell nuclear power station also reported that there had been a programme of practical tests, which had ‘shown’ that nuclear power station structures were strong enough to survive the effects of rocket attacks and plane crashes.
The British Energy road-show at Tollesbury marks only the first stage of any formal application for permission to build a new nuclear plant at Bradwell. There will be more consultation in any formal application process. There are also likely to be serious legal challenges to many of the applications to build new power stations. The outcome is thus far from being a foregone conclusion and Tollesbury residents will have more opportunities to express their views and concerns.

Barry Jones

Bradwell to have new nuclear power station Added: 23 January 2009 12:04

Breaking news - Bradwell, along with Sellafield and Oldbury have been officially nominated to have a new nuclear power station

Spanish and Scottish companies to build new Bradwell Added: 21 January 2009 09:40

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org:80/newsarticle.aspx?id=24443

Iberdrola and SSE unite for UK new build
20 January 2009
Spanish utility Iberdrola and Britain's Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) have announced plans to create a joint venture to participate in the UK nuclear new build program. Meanwhile, the sale of land next to existing UK plants is progressing.

In a statement, the companies said, "Working with the relevant UK government agencies, the joint venture's initial aim is to secure sites suitable for nuclear power stations."

The statement added, "While each partner brings high quality relationships with equipment suppliers, the joint venture will not be bound to any single vendor for new nuclear development, and will be able to make use of the best available technology for each element of the nuclear new build program."

"Both Iberdrola and SSE may consider adding partners to the joint venture in the future," the statement said.

Pedro Azagra, director of development at Iberdrola, said: "Iberdrola is committed to the UK market, and welcomes the UK government's plans to develop new nuclear power plants for low-carbon energy supply."

Iberdrola was one of six major European utilities that have provided resources and shared the costs of taking Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design through the UK Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process.

SSE's director of energy supply Alistair Phillips-Davies, said: "We accept that one more tranche of nuclear power stations is necessary for the UK's energy policy goals from around the end of the next decade. We also recognise that we will have to continue to be able to source power generated from nuclear stations if we are to be able to meet our customers' energy needs in the long term."

He added, "Our decision to participate in this venture is consistent with both of these points, and our long-standing willingness to work with other parties in this area, and complements our core investment strategy in renewables."

Land sale progresses

The announcement of SSE's joint venture with Iberdrola comes after the deadline for companies to express an interest in taking part in an auction to buy land adjacent to the existing nuclear power plants at Wylfa in Anglesey, Oldbury in Gloucestershire and Bradwell in Essex.

On 10 September, the NDA announced that it was preparing an initial tranche of land sales. It identified areas of land to be disposed of in the first tranche of its land disposal programme adjacent to existing plants at Wylfa, Oldbury and Bradwell. It subsequently announced that it had reached agreement with EdF for the simultaneous marketing of the land owned by NDA at these sites along with the land owned by EdF at Wylfa. The NDA launched its call for expressions of interest for the purchase of the land in late November.

John Clarke, commercial director of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), said, "The asset disposal program is progressing well and we are very pleased with the response to our call for expressions of interest. We now have a pool of bidders which means the NDA can be confident in delivering value through this disposal process." He added, "We aim to complete the auctions in the first quarter of 2009."

The NDA did not disclose which companies had expressed an interest in acquiring the land.
New build at Bradwell

British Energy charm offensive Added: 17 December 2008 10:26

Bradwell

AN energy firm says it is pleased with the number of people who
turned out to hear its plans for a new nuclear power plant. More than
240 people attended British Energyâ?Ts eight public meetings â?"
including ones in West Mersea and Tollebsury â?" about building a new
nuclear power station at Bradwell.

Colchester Gazette 14th Dec 2008

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/3973280.North_Essex__249_hear_power_plant_plans/#show British Energy charm offensive

Response to the Royal Haskoning Report on effects on Blackwater Estuary Added: 28 November 2008 15:27

At the British Energy meeting in Tollesbury I made a brief comment on the above. Having looked at the report in greater detail, I would like to make the following points, and consequent request for further information from Royal Haskoning.


I commend the attempt to be thorough and to take note of issues that worry the public. However there are some aspects that give cause for concern.

· section 4.3 (last two paras) says "survey work has been determined by an assessment of the projected scale of the influence of the development and sampling effort has been appropriately weighted within that domain"

I would like to know (in the context of the admitted absence of data as listed in Table 4.1) how they have "determined" their "assessment". They should be studying all parameters throughout the entire Blackwater system.

· table 4 gives the list of proposed survey work etc. re hydro, coastal geomorphology and sediment and water quality: it is vital that all of these tasks are estuary wide and multi seasonal (thus covering all potential seasonal influences).
In the context of the widely demonstrated phenomenon of radioactivity's adsorbtion and concentration in fine sediments, such a data suite would clearly identify those sites most likely to require follow up radioecology surveys. The identification of fine sediment deposits and the sediment transport routes in the Blackwater is of the utmost importance: both as a baseline data suite and as an indicator of potential public health impacts now and in the future.

· There is very little mention of radio-ecology work in the whole document. Section 3 says: "with respect to sediment quality in the vicinity of the proposed works, relevant investigations will be undertaken by CEFAS as part of the survey programme designed to investigate the overall marine environment of the study area". Does this work include the radioecology?

· What is your definition of "in the vicinity of the proposed works”. Once again we all know that radioactivity travels and re-concentrates at sites distant from the works. It is to be hoped that CEFAS and radioecology studies will not start until AFTER the other surveys have been completed and published, so that CEFAS can then use that data to inform their own survey plan and that if they do radioecology work they do it on an estuary wide basis.

Oppposition to new nuclear at Bradwell Added: 21 November 2008 11:59

FYI
JIm

BRADWELL-ON-SEA: New nuclear power station plan opposed
Wednesday, November 19, 2008,


THE proposal for a new nuclear power station at Bradwell-on-Sea has been criticised by residents at a series of public meetings.

British Energy, joint owners of the site, led the consultation at Tollesbury last Thursday as residents expressed fears over health, transport links, evacuation procedures and flood risks – and dismissed the prospect of 500 jobs.

Royal Haskoning is currently conducting an environmental impact assessment of the site adjacent to the existing decommissioned power station, on behalf of British Energy.

One resident mentioned a German report which claims that the risk of leukaemia is more than doubled within a three-mile radius of radioactive power stations.

She said: "There isn't enough information about health risks. We simply do not know what the causes are."


But environmental consultant Lyall Seale said: "There is a very clear position that there is no determined cause or link between nuclear power stations and adverse health."

The question of evacuation of Mersea Island, where 8,000 people live, was also raised as the road from it is inaccessible at high tide. British Energy said it would be up to the site owners to put forward a nuclear emergency evacuation plan.

A choke point in Tollesbury, on the High Street near the Kings Head pub, was also identified as a major traffic concern in the event of evacuation.

Professor Andy Blowers, chairman of BANNG, a group against Bradwell as a site for a new nuclear power station, said: "People think its a new nuclear power station, but this is going to be a high-level radioactive waste site which is going to be under water in 100 years."

Val Mainwood, of the green campaign group Bradwell for Renewable Energy, said there was a very real fear that the whole of the Dengie peninsula would become industrial if the proposal went ahead.

A £12.4 billion merger between British Energy and EDF Energy, expected early next year, could see the Bradwell site put up for auction to allow industry competition.

Final decisions regarding a planning application for the site at Bradwell will not be made until the government has concluded a high level assessment of site suitability.

Further meetings are planned for Tuesday November 25 at Southminster Memorial Hall, 2.30pm-5pm; Wednesday November 26, Steeple Village Hall, 10am-12.30pm, and Cold Norton Village Hall, 6.30pm-9pm.


http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/searching/BRADWELL-SEA-New-nuclear-power-station-plan-opposed/article-485484-detail/article.html

Bradwell B Added: 17 November 2008 15:36

This is our response to the consultation on how to select a site for a new nuclear power station. This is called the Site Selection Assessment (SSA) You can see the document that we have responded to on the DBerr website.


Question 1:

Do you agree that, at this time, the SSA should focus only on sites that are nominated as being suitable candidates for deploying new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025? If not, why not?

We do not agree. The terms of the Energy White Paper are that all likely sites are to be looked at, including conventional power station sites, and sites not normally associated with such activity. The SSA should be a neutral undertaking, broad enough to take in all issues. By limiting the study to existing nuclear power plants, it appears that the Government is bending to the will of the Energy utility companies, who see their best and easiest profits coming from areas already used to nuclear generation.


Question 2:
Do you agree that the overall SSA process provides an appropriate mechanism for identifying and assessing those sites which are strategically suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025? If not, how should the process be changed?

We are not party to the process whereby these sites have been singled out. We are concerned that the engagement process is being run by an agency that has already nailed its colours to the mast, namely the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As DECC is a pro-nuclear nominator of the site in our area, we are concerned that the broader interests of the site and the community will not be heard, and that the engagement with the public is on limited terms.

Furthermore it is not clear from the criteria that there is a methodology by which the community response can be measured and weighted. Then there is the added difficulty (still being grappled with on the disposal of nuclear wastes) of what is a community, and how it will be defined for the purposes of this exercise. What role will members of the public have in defining what is their community?
It is our belief that the limited nature of this exercise will not achieve an authentic account of the best way forward. Local communities should have been consulted at the outset to discuss and identify their criteria.
Our experience, in ten years of stakeholder engagement, is that there is a huge gap in perception between those whose conceptualising is desk-bound, and the priorities of those who belong to and care for the environment in which they live. For example, by nominating Bradwell as a new build site without prior consultation DECC is ignoring the wishes of the population of north and Mid Essex, who, in 2002-3, petitioned the Crown Estate and related government departments to use the Bradwell grid connection for the transmission of off-shore wind-generated electricity. The letters were signed off by a number of environmental groups a range of local councillors and one Member of Parliament.

We would like to know why a full Strategic Environmental Assessment is not being carried out at this stage. This present consultation flies in the face of the First Environmental Report envisaged in DECC’s SEA Scoping Report published earlier this year. It seems that we are being shoe-horned into a consultation for the benefit of the newly privatised energy industry and its European corporate utility partners. WE NOTE THAT ON THE CRITERIA CHART THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC VIEWS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. Here is part of a statement we gave to Colchester Borough Council’s Scrutiny Panel on 4th November.

Up to now we have all been focussing on British Energy’s plans to build a twin reactor. However this is only part of the story. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is preparing to sell a tranche of land adjacent to the old Magnox site. In the journal Nuclear Engineering International of September, Ian Jackson writes on the implications of this. He describes how the NDA, in order to maximise its profits due to short-fall in Government subsidy, is encouraging hot competition amongst the major European utility companies. He envisages that the land at Bradwell could sell, in real estate terms, from £2million to £6 million per acre, the equivalent of prime residential development land in London. To recoup the costs, the successful utility will want to take full benefit of the land potential. But because a single nuclear site might be able to accommodate two or even three reactor units, the total profitability of each station could be as high as £4.8 billion for a twin-unit, or £5 billion for a triple-unit AP1000, 4-5 times larger than that of a single reactor.

So in the future Mersea residents could be looking over the Blackwater Estuary at five or more nuclear reactors, together with a twin reactor is a state of decommissioning, in a heavily industrialised landscape. Once the land is sold, all decisions (other than regulatory) will be out of Whitehall’s hands, and of course ours. Where the public fits into this scenario is far from clear. The SSA Criteria do not include the impact of local views on any plans. It seems that commercialisation of our energy supply means that we the public are squeezed out of major plans for our area.

On behalf of my group I would be grateful if the Council would consider these implications, which takes us all into new areas, and which could constitute a threat to local democracy.

Question 4:
Do you agree that the proposed exclusionary and discretionary criteria are appropriate for the assessment of a site’s suitability at a strategic level? If not, how should the criteria be changed to achieve this objective and, specifically, are there any additional criteria that should also be used? Should the classifications of any of the exclusionary criteria, discretionary criteria, or issues for local consideration be changed?

The narrowness of this consultation ignores the potential for other activities on the site, especially in the field of renewables, energy conservation manufacture, CHP, etc. (see previous point). How will this attitude square with regional development agencies’ plans? Previous Berr guidance registers the “suitability of land for other industrial or amenity uses” as N/A (not applicable).
There should be a criterion developed to take account of, and act upon, a scenario whereby a site may be bought up to exclude competitors, and then not used for a considerable length of time. This could cause hardship and economic uncertainty in the area.
Although the subject of discharges is to be brought out in a later consultation, the iterative and holistic nature of looking at suitability or otherwise of a site will always bring certain subjects to the fore.
In the Local Criteria section, HEALTH is not listed as an issue related to nuclear safety. Bradwell for Renewable Energy notes concern about unresolved explorations of radiation pathways. Attached are papers from the German study on childhood leukaemias, plus two sets of documents (under peer-review and therefore not to be publicly disclosed) on findings connected with the Bradwell area. We urge that this issue be recognised, and dealt with on both a local and a generic level.
Looking at the proposed criteria through the eyes of the Bradwell site, there is mystification as to how the site could have been selected.
· Criterion 1.1 regards seismic risk as exclusionary. Rightly, in our view. Yet the Bradwell site lies on the fault line of Britain’s most powerful earthquake, in 1884.
· Criterion 1.4/5 on flooding, tsunami, storm surge and coastal processes, is discretionary. Given the uncertainties over climate change, coastal erosion, sinking of the East Coast, and the equivocal nature of the Halcrow Report into sea defences in its Introduction, para 3 page 6, (http://www.british-energy.com/documents/halcrow_review.PDF) we find this assessment over-optimistic. This uncertainty is exacerbated by the low-lying nature of the area, on the east side of Britain, which is sinking. There is a big issue over the impact of immense sea defences on the Blackwater Estuary.
· Criterion 1.7 Proximity to hazardous industrial facilities and operations – the site will be next to a station in process of decommissioning. Rather than being discretionary, its nature as exclusionary could be challenged by the appropriate research.
· Criterion 1.8 Proximity to civil aircraft movements. Bradwell is close to Heathrow flight path. Should that be a discretionary criterion? Accident or terrorism could be a factor here.
· Criterion 1.10 Demographics. This is regarded as exclusionary. A difficult subject, which needs to marry two needs: safety for the populace (implying remote areas) and proximity to major sources of transmission uptake (implying dense population). We feel that accidents/terrorism and emergency planning, which are listed as Local Criterion 1.11 should be of national concern, with local characteristics. There needs to be a discussion on widening this scenario, away from the existing contamination distance, especially as these new plants are of much greater capacity. At first glance the Dengie Peninsula is isolated in terms of population. Yet 3 km downwind, across the water lies Mersea Island, population 10.000 in the summer, some 15 km further on, downwind, lies Colchester, population 100.000. Chelmsford and north London are in close proximity.
· Criterion 1.12 Proximity to military activities. The Bradwell site is close to Foulness and Fingringhoe military ranges. Colchester is a garrison town. How does the SSA process distinguish between exclusion and discretion on this matter?
· Criteria relating to environmental protection, societal issues and operational requirements are to be considered as discretionary. For the public living around such areas, this is a concern of the first priority. The Blackwater Estuary is used as a fishing ground, and as a recreational area, particularly in the summer. As it is a protected environmental area we would like to challenge the status of this as discretionary.
· Criterion 4.1 Size of site to accommodate construction operation and decommissioning. Missing here is the opportunity to debate whether this particular project is the most suitable for the use of this particular land. The previous Dberr guidelines mentioned discussion of regional and local spatial development plans and environmental and land use impacts. The rush to nuclear has meant that this section has been scrapped for the purposes of this exercise.
· There are two parcels of land for sale at Bradwell, that of BE (EDF) and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. As mentioned in Question 2, Ian Jackson’s article in Nuclear Engineering International of September 1st 2008 http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2050837 suggests that commercial pressures, with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority encouraging competition in order to fetch the highest possible sum for its land in order to make up the Government short-fall in decommissioning funds, could result in a number of reactors being built, in order to re-coup and to maximise profits. Given that four or more reactors could be built in such a situation, we recommend that the existing criteria be re-examined for any resulting qualitative differences. For example, how might the impact of four reactors as opposed to two affect emergency planning? A good example would be to look at the plans for evacuating Mersea Island, with only one road out, subject to tides. Equally, there may be new criteria that would have to be developed to reflect more intense industrial use of the land. For example, value for money in relation to the local economy. Will the inflated price of this land be reflected in the region’s prosperity?
· Criterion 4.3 Access to transmission infrastructure is classed as a local criterion. This issue should be made a national one. It is crucial that transmission of all sources, whether nuclear, fossil-fuelled or renewable, be discussed as a national issue. Where the sites are, and their ability to transmit via the National Grid, is of crucial importance. At Bradwell, for example, the existing transmission structure will have to be re-built. Then there is the issue of pylons, which will have to be much larger to carry the greater capacity from the new reactors, with the effect on land values, not to mention public opinion. There needs to be discussion on nominated sites with poor grid connections.



General discussion

Back end issues

Much is made of the ability of new reactors to be quickly dismantled. Yet the legacy they leave has to be dealt with. Spent fuel, which is high- level waste, will have to be stored on site until it is safe to handle. This waste, although smaller in quantity than that produced by the old Magnoxes, has a high burn-up rate and is consequently more radioactive. It is disappointing to note that there are few references to this subject in the Dberr document. There will have to be stores built to last for 100 years. We understand there is much discussion as to how exactly such stores will be managed, and indeed how to deal with this material if/when it goes into a geological repository.

We note the Government’s rush to build new nuclear reactors without having finalised plans for dealing with the legacy wastes. We also note that the Government is preparing to build new nuclear reactors without having full understanding of how to deal with the spent fuel arising from this process.
Missing from the criteria is the impact on intergenerational equity.



How does the SSA fit into other current processes?

How does the above align with the Justification process on new nuclear plants and the Generic Design Assessment process?

How can an SSA exploration be conducted without knowledge of its relationship with other frameworks such as the Overarching Energy National Policy Statements, and the Transmission and Electricity Networks National Policy Statements?


Bradwell for Renewable Energy – who we are

This local group, named as the Shut Down Bradwell Campaign, was formed in 1987 in response to concerns over the Long Term Safety Review of the twin nuclear reactors at Bradwell-on-Sea. From then on it campaigned consistently for their closure. In 2002, with their closure, the group expanded its remit (and changed its name) to promote renewable energy and energy conservation and to oppose new nuclear development. Membership ranges from Harwich in the north of Essex, to Brentwood in the south, as well as neighbouring counties.

This document has been reviewed by, and has received input from its members.

Val Mainwood
Spokeswoman
Bradwell for Renewable Energy

www.brare.co.uk

Environmental scoping report for Bradwell B Added: 12 November 2008 21:07

This report goes into the details of the issues and problems, including the potential effects on the Blackwater Estuary, of a new nuclear power station. Much work needs to be donebefore a true picture emerges.

http://www.british-energy.com/documents/Bradwell_Environmental_Scoping_Report.pdf Bradwell Environmental Scoping Report

New group BANNG Added: 12 November 2008 10:08

Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group has just published its website: http://www.banng.org.uk/page_1224874453426.html BANNG

Response to the site selection assessment criteria for new nuke at Bradwell Added: 11 November 2008 18:21

Question 1:
Do you agree that, at this time, the SSA should focus only on sites that are nominated as being suitable candidates for deploying new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025? If not, why not?

We do not agree. The terms of the Energy White Paper are that all likely sites are to be looked at, including conventional power station sites, and sites not normally associated with such activity. The SSA should be a neutral undertaking, broad enough to take in all issues. By limiting the study to existing nuclear power plants, it appears that the Government is bending to the will of the Energy utility companies, who see their best and easiest profits coming from areas already used to nuclear generation.


Question 2:
Do you agree that the overall SSA process provides an appropriate mechanism for identifying and assessing those sites which are strategically suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025? If not, how should the process be changed?

We are not party to the process whereby these sites have been singled out. We are concerned that the engagement process is being run by an agency that has already nailed its colours to the mast, namely the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As DECC is a pro-nuclear nominator of the site in our area, we are concerned that the broader interests of the site and the community will not be heard, and that the engagement with the public is on limited terms.

Furthermore it is not clear from the criteria that there is a methodology by which the community response can be measured and weighted. Then there is the added difficulty (still being grappled with on the disposal of nuclear wastes) of what is a community, and how it will be defined for the purposes of this exercise. What role will members of the public have in defining what is their community?
It is our belief that the limited nature of this exercise will not achieve an authentic account of the best way forward. Local communities should have been consulted at the outset to discuss and identify their criteria.
Our experience, in ten years of stakeholder engagement, is that there is a huge gap in perception between those whose conceptualising is desk-bound, and the priorities of those who belong to and care for the environment in which they live. For example, by nominating Bradwell as a new build site without prior consultation DECC is ignoring the wishes of the population of north and Mid Essex, who, in 2002-3, petitioned the Crown Estate and related government departments to use the Bradwell grid connection for the transmission of off-shore wind-generated electricity. The letters were signed off by a number of environmental groups a range of local councillors and one Member of Parliament.

We would like to know why a full Strategic Environmental Assessment is not being carried out at this stage. This present consultation flies in the face of the First Environmental Report envisaged in DECC’s SEA Scoping Report published earlier this year. It seems that we are being shoe-horned into a consultation for the benefit of the newly privatised energy industry and its European corporate utility partners. WE NOTE THAT ON THE CRITERIA CHART THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC VIEWS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. Here is part of a statement we gave to Colchester Borough Council’s Scrutiny Panel on 4th November.

Up to now we have all been focussing on British Energy’s plans to build a twin reactor. However this is only part of the story. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is preparing to sell a tranche of land adjacent to the old Magnox site. In the journal Nuclear Engineering International of September, Ian Jackson writes on the implications of this. He describes how the NDA, in order to maximise its profits due to short-fall in Government subsidy, is encouraging hot competition amongst the major European utility companies. He envisages that the land at Bradwell could sell, in real estate terms, from £2million to £6 million per acre, the equivalent of prime residential development land in London. To recoup the costs, the successful utility will want to take full benefit of the land potential. But because a single nuclear site might be able to accommodate two or even three reactor units, the total profitability of each station could be as high as £4.8 billion for a twin-unit, or £5 billion for a triple-unit AP1000, 4-5 times larger than that of a single reactor.

So in the future Mersea residents could be looking over the Blackwater Estuary at five or more nuclear reactors, together with a twin reactor is a state of decommissioning, in a heavily industrialised landscape. Once the land is sold, all decisions (other than regulatory) will be out of Whitehall’s hands, and of course ours. Where the public fits into this scenario is far from clear. The SSA Criteria do not include the impact of local views on any plans. It seems that commercialisation of our energy supply means that we the public are squeezed out of major plans for our area.

On behalf of my group I would be grateful if the Council would consider these implications, which takes us all into new areas, and which could constitute a threat to local democracy.

Question 4:
Do you agree that the proposed exclusionary and discretionary criteria are appropriate for the assessment of a site’s suitability at a strategic level? If not, how should the criteria be changed to achieve this objective and, specifically, are there any additional criteria that should also be used? Should the classifications of any of the exclusionary criteria, discretionary criteria, or issues for local consideration be changed?

The narrowness of this consultation ignores the potential for other activities on the site, especially in the field of renewables, energy conservation manufacture, CHP, etc. (see previous point). How will this attitude square with regional development agencies’ plans? Previous Berr guidance registers the “suitability of land for other industrial or amenity uses” as N/A (not applicable).
There should be a criterion developed to take account of, and act upon, a scenario whereby a site may be bought up to exclude competitors, and then not used for a considerable length of time. This could cause hardship and economic uncertainty in the area.
Although the subject of discharges is to be brought out in a later consultation, the iterative and holistic nature of looking at suitability or otherwise of a site will always bring certain subjects to the fore.
In the Local Criteria section, HEALTH is not listed as an issue related to nuclear safety. Bradwell for Renewable Energy notes concern about unresolved explorations of radiation pathways. Attached are papers from the German study on childhood leukaemias, plus two sets of documents (under peer-review and therefore not to be publicly disclosed) on findings connected with the Bradwell area. We urge that this issue be recognised, and dealt with on both a local and a generic level.
Looking at the proposed criteria through the eyes of the Bradwell site, there is mystification as to how the site could have been selected.
· Criterion 1.1 regards seismic risk as exclusionary. Rightly, in our view. Yet the Bradwell site lies on the fault line of Britain’s most powerful earthquake, in 1884.
· Criterion 1.4/5 on flooding, tsunami, storm surge and coastal processes, is discretionary. Given the uncertainties over climate change, coastal erosion, sinking of the East Coast, and the equivocal nature of the Halcrow Report into sea defences in its Introduction, para 3 page 6, (http://www.british-energy.com/documents/halcrow_review.PDF) we find this assessment over-optimistic. This uncertainty is exacerbated by the low-lying nature of the area, on the east side of Britain, which is sinking. There is a big issue over the impact of immense sea defences on the Blackwater Estuary.
· Criterion 1.7 Proximity to hazardous industrial facilities and operations – the site will be next to a station in process of decommissioning. Rather than being discretionary, its nature as exclusionary could be challenged by the appropriate research.
· Criterion 1.8 Proximity to civil aircraft movements. Bradwell is close to Heathrow flight path. Should that be a discretionary criterion? Accident or terrorism could be a factor here.
· Criterion 1.10 Demographics. This is regarded as exclusionary. A difficult subject, which needs to marry two needs: safety for the populace (implying remote areas) and proximity to major sources of transmission uptake (implying dense population). We feel that accidents/terrorism and emergency planning, which are listed as Local Criterion 1.11 should be of national concern, with local characteristics. There needs to be a discussion on widening this scenario, away from the existing contamination distance, especially as these new plants are of much greater capacity. At first glance the Dengie Peninsula is isolated in terms of population. Yet 3 km downwind, across the water lies Mersea Island, population 10.000 in the summer, some 15 km further on, downwind, lies Colchester, population 100.000. Chelmsford and north London are in close proximity.
· Criterion 1.12 Proximity to military activities. The Bradwell site is close to Foulness and Fingringhoe military ranges. Colchester is a garrison town. How does the SSA process distinguish between exclusion and discretion on this matter?
· Criteria relating to environmental protection, societal issues and operational requirements are to be considered as discretionary. For the public living around such areas, this is a concern of the first priority. The Blackwater Estuary is used as a fishing ground, and as a recreational area, particularly in the summer. As it is a protected environmental area we would like to challenge the status of this as discretionary.
· Criterion 4.1 Size of site to accommodate construction operation and decommissioning. Missing here is the opportunity to debate whether this particular project is the most suitable for the use of this particular land. The previous Dberr guidelines mentioned discussion of regional and local spatial development plans and environmental and land use impacts. The rush to nuclear has meant that this section has been scrapped for the purposes of this exercise.
· There are two parcels of land for sale at Bradwell, that of BE (EDF) and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. As mentioned in Question 2, Ian Jackson’s article in Nuclear Engineering International of September 1st 2008 http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2050837 suggests that commercial pressures, with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority encouraging competition in order to fetch the highest possible sum for its land in order to make up the Government short-fall in decommissioning funds, could result in a number of reactors being built, in order to re-coup and to maximise profits. Given that four or more reactors could be built in such a situation, we recommend that the existing criteria be re-examined for any resulting qualitative differences. For example, how might the impact of four reactors as opposed to two affect emergency planning? A good example would be to look at the plans for evacuating Mersea Island, with only one road out, subject to tides. Equally, there may be new criteria that would have to be developed to reflect more intense industrial use of the land. For example, value for money in relation to the local economy. Will the inflated price of this land be reflected in the region’s prosperity?
· Criterion 4.3 Access to transmission infrastructure is classed as a local criterion. This issue should be made a national one. It is crucial that transmission of all sources, whether nuclear, fossil-fuelled or renewable, be discussed as a national issue. Where the sites are, and their ability to transmit via the National Grid, is of crucial importance. At Bradwell, for example, the existing transmission structure will have to be re-built. Then there is the issue of pylons, which will have to be much larger to carry the greater capacity from the new reactors, with the effect on land values, not to mention public opinion. There needs to be discussion on nominated sites with poor grid connections.



General discussion

Back end issues

Much is made of the ability of new reactors to be quickly dismantled. Yet the legacy they leave has to be dealt with. Spent fuel, which is high- level waste, will have to be stored on site until it is safe to handle. This waste, although smaller in quantity than that produced by the old Magnoxes, has a high burn-up rate and is consequently more radioactive. It is disappointing to note that there are few references to this subject in the Dberr document. There will have to be stores built to last for 100 years. We understand there is much discussion as to how exactly such stores will be managed, and indeed how to deal with this material if/when it goes into a geological repository.

We note the Government’s rush to build new nuclear reactors without having finalised plans for dealing with the legacy wastes. We also note that the Government is preparing to build new nuclear reactors without having full understanding of how to deal with the spent fuel arising from this process.
Missing from the criteria is the impact on intergenerational equity.



How does the SSA fit into other current processes?

How does the above align with the Justification process on new nuclear plants and the Generic Design Assessment process?

How can an SSA exploration be conducted without knowledge of its relationship with other frameworks such as the Overarching Energy National Policy Statements, and the Transmission and Electricity Networks National Policy Statements?


Bradwell for Renewable Energy – who we are

This local group, named as the Shut Down Bradwell Campaign, was formed in 1987 in response to concerns over the Long Term Safety Review of the twin nuclear reactors at Bradwell-on-Sea. From then on it campaigned consistently for their closure. In 2002, with their closure, the group expanded its remit (and changed its name) to promote renewable energy and energy conservation and to oppose new nuclear development. Membership ranges from Harwich in the north of Essex, to Brentwood in the south, as well as neighbouring counties.

This document has been reviewed by, and has received input from its members.

Val Mainwood
Spokeswoman
Bradwell for Renewable Energy

www.brare.co.uk

Brare report on new build consultation 11/11/08 Added: 11 November 2008 14:08

Question 1:
Do you agree that, at this time, the SSA should focus only on sites that are nominated as being suitable candidates for deploying new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025? If not, why not?

We do not agree. The terms of the Energy White Paper are that all likely sites are to be looked at, including conventional power station sites, and sites not normally associated with such activity. The SSA should be a neutral undertaking, broad enough to take in all issues. By limiting the study to existing nuclear power plants, it appears that the Government is bending to the will of the Energy utility companies, who see their best and easiest profits coming from areas already used to nuclear generation.


Question 2:
Do you agree that the overall SSA process provides an appropriate mechanism for identifying and assessing those sites which are strategically suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025? If not, how should the process be changed?

We are not party to the process whereby these sites have been singled out. We are concerned that the engagement process is being run by an agency that has already nailed its colours to the mast, namely the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As DECC is a pro-nuclear nominator of the site in our area, we are concerned that the broader interests of the site and the community will not be heard, and that the engagement with the public is on limited terms.

Furthermore it is not clear from the criteria that there is a methodology by which the community response can be measured and weighted. Then there is the added difficulty (still being grappled with on the disposal of nuclear wastes) of what is a community, and how it will be defined for the purposes of this exercise. What role will members of the public have in defining what is their community?
It is our belief that the limited nature of this exercise will not achieve an authentic account of the best way forward. Local communities should have been consulted at the outset to discuss and identify their criteria.
Our experience, in ten years of stakeholder engagement, is that there is a huge gap in perception between those whose conceptualising is desk-bound, and the priorities of those who belong to and care for the environment in which they live. For example, by nominating Bradwell as a new build site without prior consultation DECC is ignoring the wishes of the population of north and Mid Essex, who, in 2002-3, petitioned the Crown Estate and related government departments to use the Bradwell grid connection for the transmission of off-shore wind-generated electricity. The letters were signed off by a number of environmental groups a range of local councillors and one Member of Parliament.

We would like to know why a full Strategic Environmental Assessment is not being carried out at this stage. This present consultation flies in the face of the First Environmental Report envisaged in DECC’s SEA Scoping Report published earlier this year. It seems that we are being shoe-horned into a consultation for the benefit of the newly privatised energy industry and its European corporate utility partners. WE NOTE THAT ON THE CRITERIA CHART THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC VIEWS AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. Here is part of a statement we gave to Colchester Borough Council’s Scrutiny Panel on 4th November.

Up to now we have all been focussing on British Energy’s plans to build a twin reactor. However this is only part of the story. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is preparing to sell a tranche of land adjacent to the old Magnox site. In the journal Nuclear Engineering International of September, Ian Jackson writes on the implications of this. He describes how the NDA, in order to maximise its profits due to short-fall in Government subsidy, is encouraging hot competition amongst the major European utility companies. He envisages that the land at Bradwell could sell, in real estate terms, from £2million to £6 million per acre, the equivalent of prime residential development land in London. To recoup the costs, the successful utility will want to take full benefit of the land potential. But because a single nuclear site might be able to accommodate two or even three reactor units, the total profitability of each station could be as high as £4.8 billion for a twin-unit, or £5 billion for a triple-unit AP1000, 4-5 times larger than that of a single reactor.

So in the future Mersea residents could be looking over the Blackwater Estuary at five or more nuclear reactors, together with a twin reactor is a state of decommissioning, in a heavily industrialised landscape. Once the land is sold, all decisions (other than regulatory) will be out of Whitehall’s hands, and of course ours. Where the public fits into this scenario is far from clear. The SSA Criteria do not include the impact of local views on any plans. It seems that commercialisation of our energy supply means that we the public are squeezed out of major plans for our area.

On behalf of my group I would be grateful if the Council would consider these implications, which takes us all into new areas, and which could constitute a threat to local democracy.

Question 4:
Do you agree that the proposed exclusionary and discretionary criteria are appropriate for the assessment of a site’s suitability at a strategic level? If not, how should the criteria be changed to achieve this objective and, specifically, are there any additional criteria that should also be used? Should the classifications of any of the exclusionary criteria, discretionary criteria, or issues for local consideration be changed?

The narrowness of this consultation ignores the potential for other activities on the site, especially in the field of renewables, energy conservation manufacture, CHP, etc. (see previous point). How will this attitude square with regional development agencies’ plans? Previous Berr guidance registers the “suitability of land for other industrial or amenity uses” as N/A (not applicable).
There should be a criterion developed to take account of, and act upon, a scenario whereby a site may be bought up to exclude competitors, and then not used for a considerable length of time. This could cause hardship and economic uncertainty in the area.
Although the subject of discharges is to be brought out in a later consultation, the iterative and holistic nature of looking at suitability or otherwise of a site will always bring certain subjects to the fore.
In the Local Criteria section, HEALTH is not listed as an issue related to nuclear safety. Bradwell for Renewable Energy notes concern about unresolved explorations of radiation pathways. Attached are papers from the German study on childhood leukaemias, plus two sets of documents (under peer-review and therefore not to be publicly disclosed) on findings connected with the Bradwell area. We urge that this issue be recognised, and dealt with on both a local and a generic level.
Looking at the proposed criteria through the eyes of the Bradwell site, there is mystification as to how the site could have been selected.
· Criterion 1.1 regards seismic risk as exclusionary. Rightly, in our view. Yet the Bradwell site lies on the fault line of Britain’s most powerful earthquake, in 1884.
· Criterion 1.4/5 on flooding, tsunami, storm surge and coastal processes, is discretionary. Given the uncertainties over climate change, coastal erosion, sinking of the East Coast, and the equivocal nature of the Halcrow Report into sea defences in its Introduction, para 3 page 6, (http://www.british-energy.com/documents/halcrow_review.PDF) we find this assessment over-optimistic. This uncertainty is exacerbated by the low-lying nature of the area, on the east side of Britain, which is sinking. There is a big issue over the impact of immense sea defences on the Blackwater Estuary.
· Criterion 1.7 Proximity to hazardous industrial facilities and operations – the site will be next to a station in process of decommissioning. Rather than being discretionary, its nature as exclusionary could be challenged by the appropriate research.
· Criterion 1.8 Proximity to civil aircraft movements. Bradwell is close to Heathrow flight path. Should that be a discretionary criterion? Accident or terrorism could be a factor here.
· Criterion 1.10 Demographics. This is regarded as exclusionary. A difficult subject, which needs to marry two needs: safety for the populace (implying remote areas) and proximity to major sources of transmission uptake (implying dense population). We feel that accidents/terrorism and emergency planning, which are listed as Local Criterion 1.11 should be of national concern, with local characteristics. There needs to be a discussion on widening this scenario, away from the existing contamination distance, especially as these new plants are of much greater capacity. At first glance the Dengie Peninsula is isolated in terms of population. Yet 3 km downwind, across the water lies Mersea Island, population 10.000 in the summer, some 15 km further on, downwind, lies Colchester, population 100.000. Chelmsford and north London are in close proximity.
· Criterion 1.12 Proximity to military activities. The Bradwell site is close to Foulness and Fingringhoe military ranges. Colchester is a garrison town. How does the SSA process distinguish between exclusion and discretion on this matter?
· Criteria relating to environmental protection, societal issues and operational requirements are to be considered as discretionary. For the public living around such areas, this is a concern of the first priority. The Blackwater Estuary is used as a fishing ground, and as a recreational area, particularly in the summer. As it is a protected environmental area we would like to challenge the status of this as discretionary.
· Criterion 4.1 Size of site to accommodate construction operation and decommissioning. Missing here is the opportunity to debate whether this particular project is the most suitable for the use of this particular land. The previous Dberr guidelines mentioned discussion of regional and local spatial development plans and environmental and land use impacts. The rush to nuclear has meant that this section has been scrapped for the purposes of this exercise.
· There are two parcels of land for sale at Bradwell, that of BE (EDF) and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. As mentioned in Question 2, Ian Jackson’s article in Nuclear Engineering International of September 1st 2008 http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2050837 suggests that commercial pressures, with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority encouraging competition in order to fetch the highest possible sum for its land in order to make up the Government short-fall in decommissioning funds, could result in a number of reactors being built, in order to re-coup and to maximise profits. Given that four or more reactors could be built in such a situation, we recommend that the existing criteria be re-examined for any resulting qualitative differences. For example, how might the impact of four reactors as opposed to two affect emergency planning? A good example would be to look at the plans for evacuating Mersea Island, with only one road out, subject to tides. Equally, there may be new criteria that would have to be developed to reflect more intense industrial use of the land. For example, value for money in relation to the local economy. Will the inflated price of this land be reflected in the region’s prosperity?
· Criterion 4.3 Access to transmission infrastructure is classed as a local criterion. This issue should be made a national one. It is crucial that transmission of all sources, whether nuclear, fossil-fuelled or renewable, be discussed as a national issue. Where the sites are, and their ability to transmit via the National Grid, is of crucial importance. At Bradwell, for example, the existing transmission structure will have to be re-built. Then there is the issue of pylons, which will have to be much larger to carry the greater capacity from the new reactors, with the effect on land values, not to mention public opinion. There needs to be discussion on nominated sites with poor grid connections.



General discussion

Back end issues

Much is made of the ability of new reactors to be quickly dismantled. Yet the legacy they leave has to be dealt with. Spent fuel, which is high- level waste, will have to be stored on site until it is safe to handle. This waste, although smaller in quantity than that produced by the old Magnoxes, has a high burn-up rate and is consequently more radioactive. It is disappointing to note that there are few references to this subject in the Dberr document. There will have to be stores built to last for 100 years. We understand there is much discussion as to how exactly such stores will be managed, and indeed how to deal with this material if/when it goes into a geological repository.

We note the Government’s rush to build new nuclear reactors without having finalised plans for dealing with the legacy wastes. We also note that the Government is preparing to build new nuclear reactors without having full understanding of how to deal with the spent fuel arising from this process.
Missing from the criteria is the impact on intergenerational equity.



How does the SSA fit into other current processes?

How does the above align with the Justification process on new nuclear plants and the Generic Design Assessment process?

How can an SSA exploration be conducted without knowledge of its relationship with other frameworks such as the Overarching Energy National Policy Statements, and the Transmission and Electricity Networks National Policy Statements?


Bradwell for Renewable Energy – who we are

This local group, named as the Shut Down Bradwell Campaign, was formed in 1987 in response to concerns over the Long Term Safety Review of the twin nuclear reactors at Bradwell-on-Sea. From then on it campaigned consistently for their closure. In 2002, with their closure, the group expanded its remit (and changed its name) to promote renewable energy and energy conservation and to oppose new nuclear development. Membership ranges from Harwich in the north of Essex, to Brentwood in the south, as well as neighbouring counties.

This document has been reviewed by, and has received input from its members.

Val Mainwood
Spokeswoman
Bradwell for Renewable Energy

www.brare.co.uk

Tendring councillors vote against wind turbines Added: 28 October 2008 09:36

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/3796325.Tendring__Wind_farm_firm_to_go_to_appeal/ Tendring councillors vote against wind turbines

Report on concerns over nuclear proximity Added: 30 September 2008 12:54

More than half of the people living near nuclear plants still have concerns about the risk of cancer and terrorist attack, according to a study. Researchers from Cardiff University and the University of East Anglia found 54 per cent of those questioned worried about the risks of living within 10 miles of a power station. However, only 16 per cent of local residents were opposed outright to it with two-fifths (38 per cent) prepared to accept the risk "reluctantly".

Telegraph 30th Sept 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/30/eanuclear130.xml
Concern over nuclear proximity

Map of Land to be sold at Bradwell Added: 12 September 2008 16:09

http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=18509 Map of land to be sold at Bradwell

Land sold at Bradwell for new nuclear plant Added: 12 September 2008 16:07

Here is the Reuters report.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSLA34236020080910 Reuters report on this Land sold at Bradwell for new nuclearwww.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSLA34236020080910

New nuclear in Suffolk can withstand terrorism Added: 10 September 2008 12:54

A NEW nuclear power station planned for the Suffolk coast would be able to withstand a 9/11-style terrorist attack, energy bosses have claimed. British Energy has reassured local residents that safety is of paramount importance in its plans to build a third nuclear power station at Sizewell. The company has said a new station would be “designed to withstand the worst credible accident involving a large, fully-loaded commercial airliner”.

Suffolk and Essex online 6th September 2008
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED06%20Sep%202008%2000%3A08%3A24%3A047 Terrorism in Suffolk

Radioactive waste in Essex/Suffolk? Added: 10 September 2008 12:52

On 12 June this year the Government invited every local authority in England, Northern Ireland and Wales(1) to consider volunteering to house the UK’s high and medium level radioactive waste, in an underground repository. (This site will need an area the equivalent of the whole of central London, to store radioactive waste that could fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over).

The Government tells the local authorities that the benefits could be many: jobs, regeneration, better facilities, and substantial financial packages. According to the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely report, (2) these details have yet to be determined. So those considering volunteering will have to make a leap of faith into the unknown.

There are other unknowns. How do Essex people feel about this proposition, after having risen up against moves to site low and intermediate level waste in the county in the 1980s? The report talks of a “willing community”. How is this community defined? Where are the boundaries? Who will finally make the decision, and how widely will they have consulted? Will Wivenhoe Town Council and members of the public have a say? How does the local population know whether the science is reliable for up to several hundred thousand years? Will they or their descendents be contaminated by accidents? What happens if no one wants the radioactive waste facility? Will somewhere with “suitable” geology be forced to take it?

The only interest expressed so far has come from councils near Sellafield, where plans to host a repository previously failed. Several councils elsewhere have firmly declared that they do not wish to consider such a proposal. Councils in Suffolk and Essex have remained silent. These areas could be strong contenders for such a facility, because of the existing nuclear culture, there is land available, and because the area is close to major infrastructures. I have questioned the Bradwell Local Community Liaison Council, whose councillors should be informed on these matters. I have had no response.

These initial moves by the Government are the first of a long line of actions to try and establish a site for this highly dangerous material. Nowhere in the world has such a repository been completed, so there is not even the comfort of a proven model. To implement such a project there needs to be good science and thorough research, openness and transparency, and an equitable consultation system that the public has confidence in. We are a long way from that state of preparedness, and until Essex and Suffolk County Councils come clean on their intentions, this is a source of concern for us all in this area, wherever we live.

(1) Scotland has voted for above ground storage
(2) http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/mrws/index.htm

Val Mainwood
Member, Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk

Val Mainwood has lived in Wivenhoe for 27 years. She coordinates a community group (Bradwell for Renewable Energy) that promotes sustainable energy. She is a member of the recently formed Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates; a consultancy that produces balanced information and advice on the risks posed by radioactive waste to decision makers and communities.

Published in the Wivenhoe News Autumn 2008

East Essex Forum on new build Added: 03 September 2008 21:43

Account of the meeting held at Greensted Community Centre, Sept 2nd

http://www.eadt.co.uk:80/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED02%20Sep%202008%2019%3A04%3A14%3A627 East Essex Forum

"Bradwell nuclear plant already decided" Added: 17 August 2008 11:39

http://www.eadt.co.uk:80/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED15%20Aug%202008%2018%3A18%3A32%3A020 New nuke at Bradwell already decided

French nuclear accidents Added: 26 July 2008 13:07

There are so many French accidents these days it is hard to keep up. Considering that the state owned company AREVA is likely to build the new Bradwell, the following list of accidents could be of interest:

Looks like 4 accidents - 2 AREVA (future Selafield operators) and 2 EDF (Future BE owners). What confuses things is that Areva subsidiary, Socatri, owns a waste processing plant, which had the first leak, at Tricastin. But EDF also owns 4 PWRs at Tricastin - one of which suffered from the 4th accident. Some of the news stories mixed up the ownership.


Accident 1:
Independent 10th July
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/contamination-fears-after-leak-from-french-nuclear-waste-plant-863928.html

Guardian 10th July
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/10/nuclearpower.pollution

BBC 11th July
http://news.bbc..co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7502208.stm

Approximately 30 cubic metres of liquid containing un-enriched uranium spilled from an overflowing reservoir at the Tricastin facility, which handles liquids contaminated by uranium, into the ground and into the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers. The site has a nuclear reactor as well as a radioactive treatment plant.

The reactors are owned and run by EDF, but the waste treatment plant operator, is Societe Auxiliaire de Tricastin (Socatri), which is a subsidiary of the French nuclear giant, Areva.

AFX 11th July 2008
http://www.afxnews.com/about488/index.php?lg=en&c=00.00&story=2537869

The French government on Thursday ordered an investigation into the water table around all of France’s 58 nuclear reactors in an effort to dispel fears raised by a leak from a treatment plant run by Areva in southern France.

FT 17th July 2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fdb32b40-5437-11dd-aa78-000077b07658.html

Irish Independent 18th July 2008

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/uranium-leak-sparks-fears-over-french-nuclear-plants-1434989.html

Telegraph 17th July 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2306113/France-orders-tests-on-all-nuclear-power-stations-after-leak.html

2ND ACCIDENT

The French nuclear giant Areva yesterday confirmed there was a radioactive leak from a broken pipe at a nuclear fuel plant in south-eastern France, a week after a uranium spill at another of its plants polluted the local water supply. The latest incident comes as an embarrassment to the French government as it struggles to contain environmentalists' anger and reassure residents near its nuclear plants that they are safe.

The newly discovered leak at a plant in Romans-sur-Isère in the Drôme region came from a damaged pipe which safety authorities said might have ruptured a number of years ago. Areva, a state-controlled firm which makes nuclear reactors and deals with uranium, said the leak came from a buried pipe transporting liquid uranium and that the crack in the tubing was "several years old".

Guardian 19th July 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/19/pollution.france

Independent 18th July 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-finds-second-nuclear-leak-871297.html

CNN 18th July 2008
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/18/nuclear.france.ap/index.html

Interactive Investor 18th July 2008
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=6813643&subject=general&action=article

3rd ACCIDENT

The same day as the Romans-sur-Isère incident 15 EDF workers were exposed to what the company called "non-harmful" traces of radioactive elements at the Saint-Alban plant in the Alpine Isere region.

This site has two EDF PWRs: Saint Alban 1 & 2.

BBC 24th July 2008

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm

4th Accident

This leak at Tricastin too, but if you read the BBC story on this it looks like the leak was at one of the EDF nuclear reactors - as opposed to the Areva uranium processing plant. I think AFX got the ownership mixed up.

Radioactive particles spewed from a pipe at a French nuclear reactor on Wednesday, slightly contaminating 100 employees, a spokeswoman for Electricite de France said. It was the fourth incident at a French nuclear site in recent weeks and the second in five days. It is run by Areva unit Socatri. Spokeswoman Caroline Muller said 100 EDF employees were "slightly contaminated" by radioactive particles that escaped from the pipe at a reactor complex in Tricastin, in southern France.

AFX 24th July 2008

http://www.afxnews.com/about488/index.php?lg=en&c=00.00&story=2547896

BBC 24th July 2008

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm

OVERALL

Too many French nuclear workers are being contaminated with low doses of radiation, an independent research group on atomic safety said on Thursday, a day after the latest incident in southern France. The Independent Commission on Research and Information on Radiocactivity (CRIIRAD) also said a growing number of French nuclear workers were complaining about worsening working conditions and their likely impact on safety. "In less than 15 days, the CRIIRAD has been informed of four malfunctions in four nuclear plants, leading to the accidental contamination of 126 workers," CRIIRAD head Corinne Castanier told Reuters in an interview. "This is the first time I have seen so many people being contaminated in such a short period of time."

Reuters 24th July 2008
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL2465085020080724

French nuclear power stations are facing an urgent review of security after 100 workers were contaminated by a leak at a complex near Avignon.
Two other "minor" leaks occurred last Friday. One was at a nuclear fuel plant in Romans-sur-Isere, south-east France, and another at the Saint-Alban plant - also in the Alpine Isere region – in which 15 EDF workers were exposed to "non-harmful" traces of radioactive elements.

The negative publicity around the Tricastin site has led local winegrowers to launch proceedings to change the name of their local appellation, currently Tricastin AOC.


Telegraph 24th July 2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2454654/French-nuclear-leak-prompts-urgent-security-review.html

New nuclear possible in protected areas Added: 22 July 2008 16:44

A new generation of nuclear power stations could be built in flood-risk or "environmentally protected" areas, under proposed rules set out by the Government today.

Green safeguards are listed among "discretionary" criteria ministers intend to use to decide where to put the controversial reactors - not those that would instantly rule out a site. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is believed to want up to eight new reactors as part of a global "renaissance of nuclear power" to help end reliance on fossil fuels.

Under the Strategic Siting Assessment system proposed by Business Secretary John Hutton, nominations for "credible" sites backed by nuclear firms will be invited early next year. They would then be judged against a list of criteria before being put forward for planning permission - possibly using a controversial planned fast-track approach for major projects.

Sites at risk of earthquake or near heavily populated areas would be instantly ruled out according to the planned rules - due to be finalised in the coming months after consultation. But concerns of flood risk, coastal conditions and "environmentally-protected" status would be considered "less absolute" and could be overridden.

They would be used to "to form a balanced view of the site's suitability" for inclusion on a list of "strategically suitable" venues due to be published in 2010. The Government hopes building work could start as early as 2013, with the first electricity being produced four years later.

Mr Hutton said: "Nuclear power is an essential part of our future energy mix. And, alongside a ten-fold increase in renewables and investment in clean coal technology, it will help wean us off our dependency on oil and protect us against the politicisation of energy supplies. "So, we must do everything we can to remove any remaining barriers and open up the UK as the most attractive place in the world to invest in nuclear power. The strategic siting assessment is the next step towards a Nuclear National Policy Statement. This will help to speed up planning applications while making clear that safety and engagement with local communities are key."

Details of a planned environmental assessment of the nuclear new-build project were also published today, which showed it would examine "the likely significant effects on the environment including biodiversity, population and human health, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage and landscape."

There will also be a Habitats Regulations Assessment to monitor the potential effects on areas protected as part of the European Union's Natura 2000 project. The Department for Business dismissed reports earlier this month that it had already drawn up a list of sites alongside existing reactors - including Sizewell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Dungeness, Hinkley Point, and Bradwell - as the most suitable places.

Bradwell for new nuke? Added: 15 July 2008 10:03

When Gordon says we will have at least eight new nuclear power stations, we must believe him. But where to put them? There may be no news on the preferred sites until 2010. This will give him plenty of time to amend the criteria which presently sees no reason in principle why nuclear power plants shouldn't be built on flood plains. Documents quietly released last month establish that susceptibility to flooding is not a deal breaker in the criteria. Areas vulnerable to storm surges aren't ruled out either. And we know from recent experience how well we cope with floods.

Guardian (Diary) 15th July 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/15/1

Would you like a nuclear waste dump near you? Added: 07 July 2008 09:16

There cannot be many local authorities queueing up to host Britain's giant nuclear waste repository on their patch for eternity, but all will be getting a letter of invitation from energy secretary John ("mine's a nuke") Hutton in the next few weeks, and also one from NuLeAF, the local authority legacy waste advisers. Eco Soundings recommends that anyone tempted by the bribes (up to £1bn) immediately contacts the newly formed Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates. This body, made up of researchers, academics and two former government advisers from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, promises to give dispassionate, independent, objective advice - a rarity in the fractious debate. For more information, go to nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk

Guardian 18th June 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/18/ecosoundings

Tendring votes against Earls Farm Wind Turbines Added: 07 July 2008 09:13

Sir, - Liz Brooks (EADT Letters, 25 June) is quite right that the
Tendring District councillors who refused planning permission for the
Earls Hall wind farm have shown a lack of vision. Maybe they don't
realise that the price of fossil fuel will only go up over the next
couple of decades as supplies run out, whereas wind will not run out.
Those same councillors also appear to be out of touch with local people.
Four in five of the submissions made by Tendring residents were in
favour of the scheme. One has to wonder, given that the expert advice
available to the Development Control Committee strongly supported
granting permission, whether the committee truly made an objective
decision or whether they were bullied into it by the jeering,
foot-stomping minority in attendance. The decision goes against
government guidance, the East of England plan, and the advice of
Tendring's own council officers. If it goes to appeal, the decision is
likely to be overturned. This will leave Tendring council tax payers to
foot the bill for the appeal and Tendring councillors with egg on their
face.

PETER LYNN, Green Party Candidate for the European Parliament, Castle
Road, Colchester.


[41 Castle Rd, Colchester CO1 1UN]

Nuclear plans -miles of giant pylons Added: 13 June 2008 18:50

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/11/eapylon111.xml nuclear - giant pylons

Inspector's report on the state of the cooling ponds Added: 13 June 2008 13:16

Extract from the Quarterly Report of the NII to the Local Liaison Committee 01 January to 31 March 2008, published on 3 June.
"The NII site inspector reviewed progress with the cooling pond clean up and ILW sludge removal and storage projects and found that these projects were progressing well, in a safe and compliant manner.

The NII site inspector held discussions with site lead team members regarding the deferral, beyond 2012, of the planned removal of the ILW from the Fuel Element Debris (FED) vaults. The site inspector requested evidence that the site had a high degree of certainty that an adequate safety justification will be able to be produced in future to support the deferral and this was subsequently provided in writing to NII."

(Quarterly report for 01 January to 31 March 2008)

Dated 3 June 2008

East Anglians invited to host nuclear waste dump Added: 13 June 2008 12:35

Nuclear waste could be buried near people's homes even if most of them disagree with the plan, the government has said. Yesterday, environment secretary Hilary Benn asked local communities to volunteer to have toxic waste buried nearby - and was accused of offering bribes to take the waste. The government says “voluntar-ism” should be the principle behind finding a site to bury nuclear waste which would remain radioactive for hundreds of years. But the white paper published yesterday says there is no set level of public support and that disposal could go ahead in the face of opposition.

East Anglian Daily Press 13th June 2008

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED12%20Jun%202008%2020%3A00%3A32%3A560
E Anglia host dump?

New protest group formed at Mersea Added: 15 May 2008 13:47

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=News&itemid=IPED08%20May%202008%2017%3A24%3A56%3A723 Mersea protest group

BANGG is formed (Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group)

Group formed against new nuclear station at Bradwell Added: 15 May 2008 10:40

North Essex: protest group against new nuclear station
By Danyelle Garside
Comment
A GROUP has been launched to fight plans for a second nuclear power station in Bradwell-on-Sea.

The tiny village has been earmarked by the Government as one of several preferred sites for a new generation of power stations.

If given the go-ahead, the new site could sit alongside the existing station - which is being decommissioned - on land owned by British Energy.

Residents of West Mersea, which is situated on the banks of the River Blackwater opposite the proposed location, have set up Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (Banng).

A spokesman said the group will try to protect the people and environment of the River Blackwater estuary from the risks and dangers of radioactivity by stopping the further development of nuclear activity in the area.

Members will focus on raising public awareness, gathering information on the risks of a new station, and challenging plans for any more nuclear activity on the Bradwell site.

They will also demand the clean-up of the existing site and call for transparent decision making on the part of Government and the nuclear industry in which the community is involved.

Professor Andy Blowers, who was picked as chairman, said: "There is a determination among the supporters of Banng to oppose the development of a new nuclear station at Bradwell within two miles of Mersea Island.

"The reality is that it will become a long-term, high-level waste dump with all the risks that entails.

"There is a strong feeling that the views of local communities are being cynically ignored and that we are being kept in the dark."

Banng plans to recruit supporters, organise petitions and hold meetings around the Blackwater estuary.

(From Colchester Evening Gazette 14 May 2008)

Nuclear brainwashing for our children Added: 06 May 2008 08:36

A scheme is well underway to introduce nuclear power as a friendly option into the curriculum as the nuclear industry believes most teachers are anti-nuclear! To witness the depths of this activity, visit:
http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Main_Page Nuclear brainwashing for our children

Nuclear as terror target Added: 05 April 2008 14:11

Sometimes we are accused of being scaremongering or "political" in talking of the risk of terror. Our fears are realised below:

Attacks on nuclear power stations, oil and gas terminals, Canary Wharf and Heathrow’s control tower were being considered by leaders of the plot to blow up seven transatlantic airliners in mid-flight, a court was told yesterday.

Times 5th April 2008

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3671825.ece
Nuclear as terror target

British Energy after NDA land at Bradwell Added: 04 April 2008 09:25

Centrica Plc. has expressed an interest in using land owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) to develop new nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom. Thursday is the closing day of a month-long process launched by the NDA to gauge interest from parties wishing to use its sites across the United Kingdom, as part of the government's push to build more nuclear power. An industry source said Centrica has expressed interest in the NDA sites. The UK energy provider, which currently has no nuclear assets, joins nuclear provider British Energy Group Plc. in expressing interest in the NDA's sites. British Energy told Thomson Financial News that it is interested in NDA sites, particularly those adjacent to British Energy's existing plants at Hunterston, Hinkley Point, Dungeness, Sizewell and Bradwell.

Interactive Investor 3rd April 2008
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=6638587&subject=companies&action=article BE after more land at BradwellInteractive Investor 3rd April 2008

Likely reactor designs for new Bradwell Added: 04 April 2008 09:08

http://www.hse.gov.uk/newreactors/

The above is the result of the regulators' inspection of recommended designs Reactor design assessment

British Energy plans to convince Essex residents of a new nuclear power station Added: 04 April 2008 08:55

The people of the Sizewell area have had their induction to the subject, with reps from the site, from government departments and from British Energy. Below is the link to their slide show and the minutes of the meeting.

We anticipate a similar meeting regarding the British Energy site at Bradwell.

http://www.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=416 British Energy visit to Bradwell areawww.british-energy.com/pagetemplate.php?pid=416

Motion on new build put before Colchester Borough Council Added: 04 April 2008 08:51

The Motion below has been submitted by me and accepted for debate at the Colchester Council Meeting on 20th February.

‘This Council –

Notes with regret that British Energy is looking to construct a new nuclear power station at Bradwell,

Opposes the construction of such a facility close to the substantial town of West Mersea,

Instructs the Chief Executive to convey these views to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and to British Energy and to send copies of these letters to our two Members of Parliament, Essex County Council and Maldon District Council.’

(This motion was put by Henry Spyvee, Colchester Lib Dem Councillor. The motion was not accepted by the Council, being ammended to be less strong).

Two new reactors for Sizewell Added: 14 March 2008 20:39

PLANS to built two new nuclear power stations at Sizewell, as revealed by the EADT yesterday, have been greeted positively by community leaders. The two reactors each of which could be bigger than the existing Sizewell B station, should generate 1,600 megawatts of power, compared with the 1,200 megawatts of Sizewell B, depending on the type of reactor chosen. Costing nearly £6 billion, construction could start in 2013 and be completed by 2018. It is estimated that about 5,000 workers would be on site at the peak of the construction period. The draft proposals unveiled at a community meeting on Tuesday night included twin reactors, a new access road and a beach landing stage to help minimise road deliveries.

East Anglian Daily Press 13th March 2008
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=News&itemid=IPED12%20Mar%202008%2023%3A40%3A08%3A777 new nuclear at Sizewell

Bradwell Added: 14 March 2008 20:35

Andy Blowers: Towards the mouth of the Blackwater estuary looms the decaying hulk of Bradwell nuclear power station, which operated for 40 years until 2002. It is now being decommissioned, a process that will not be finally finished until the next century. Yet, before the old station has been cleaned up, another is proposed as part of the government's determination to have a replacement nuclear programme. Bradwell is in the frontline as the UK's energy policy reaches the local battlegrounds. Last night, I led a panel of experts presenting some of the issues to a public meeting at the Mersea Island community centre. It was the first of what will be many meetings to give local people a chance to speak for the future of their community.

Guardian 12th March 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/12/nuclearpower.energy
Bradwell

Protesting outside a nuclear power station is now illegal Added: 14 March 2008 20:33

From last week, protesting outside nuclear power stations is illegal.

Independent 10th March 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/simon-carr-big-brother-considers-surveillance-his-right-793668.html protests now illegal

We and the Environment Agency are not happy Added: 25 February 2008 12:17

Two government agencies at the heart of the nuclear industry are at war over safety concerns at some of the country's most sensitive sites. The Environment Agency believes insufficient funds have been made available by ministers for the clean-up of some sites, and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is accused of making things worse by deciding to concentrate on especially toxic waste at sites such as Sellafield in Cumbria. This prioritisation will delay clean-up elsewhere, "prolonging and potentially increasing risk to the environment that they pose and the costs necessary for their maintenance", the Environment Agency argues in a strongly worded response to the NDA's draft business plan covering the years 2008-11.

Guardian 25th Feb 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/25/nuclearpower.greenpolitics

British Energy needs competition Added: 25 February 2008 12:12

The Government is concerned that a lack of competition in the UK nuclear industry threatens to distort decision-making in the race to build a new generation of nuclear power plants. In an interview with The Times, Malcolm Wicks, the Energy Minister, said the Government would look critically at British Energy’s ownership of eight of the most attractive UK sites for new reactors. “We want to see proper competition here,” he said. “We don’t want to see some sort of cagey deal between one company and another company . . . We have got to facilitate proper competition.” Mr Wicks’s comments come amid rising concern that British Energy, which generates a sixth of Britain’s electricity, could have undue influence over where new plants are built. There is a limited number of UK sites where nuclear plants could be built and local people would be supportive. These include the sites owned by British Energy, a company in which the Government! has a near40 per cent stake, and those owned by the Government through the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Times 22nd Feb 2008
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article3412912.ece

Sizewell fears Added: 13 February 2008 09:43

Sizewell

BRITISH Energy is being accused of “irresponsible” conduct over its refusal to disclose full details of the risk to the public from the storage of highly radioactive nuclear waste at the Sizewell B power station. The company has provided some background information but claims details must remain confidential to protect the safety and security of the plant. The criticism has been voiced by Pete Wilkinson, an independent environmental consultant who was a member of a Government-appointed committee on the disposal of radioactive waste.

East Anglian Daily Times 12th Feb 2008

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED11%20Feb%202008%2021%3A00%3A53%3A620
Sizewell fears

Fears about waste from fuel elements exploding at Bradwell Added: 05 February 2008 09:24

There has been much discussion in the papers about fears that the debris from the fuel elements could suddenly deteriorate and explode. This organisation has been sporadically in touch with the authorities on this matter ever since the 1998 Nuclear Installations Inspectorate Report expressing concern. After many conversations over the years, and including new discussions due to the publicity, Brare is confident that the relevant parties are dealing with the matter in the correct manner. If anyone wishes for further details, please contact the website.

Meeting at Mersea March 11 Added: 23 January 2008 10:18

Concerned citizens of Mersea have organised the above meeting to discuss all the ramifications of new build. High level specialised speakers are agreeing to come and talk about:

applying the national to the local scene

why we don’t need nuclear – the alternative low carbon economy

why we don’t want it -the dangers to health and environment

what dangers lurk within – the problem of dangerous long-term wastes with nowhere to go

decoding nuclear nonsense

and what to do about it!
Further details will be given in due course. Mark 11th March in your diaries and spread the word! Mersea's concern is Essex's concern too, living as we do in proximity to two nuclear sites subject to new build considerations.

Letter published in East Anglian Daily Times 19 Jan Added: 19 January 2008 12:32

----- Original Message -----
From: brare energy
To: EADTLetters@eadt.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:25 PM
Subject: "nuclear solution is the right way to go"


Since 1999 this particular anti-nuclear group has engaged intensively and extensively with all relevant parties on decommissioning reactors like Sizewell A and Bradwell, improving environmental performance at Sellafield, on managing radioactively contaminated ground, and on radioactive waste management.

The knowledge gained from these activities has led us to a less rosy view of nuclear power generation than that of Mark Salisbury (Letters 15 Jan).

Making the old nuclear wastes safe will cost the tax payer around £70 billion pounds. Even that will not be enough to quickly restore the Bradwell and Sizewell A sites.

As for building new nuclear power stations, Mr Salisbury says "nuclear power is one of the most cost-effective and cheapest power generating technologies". If I were to make a cost-benefit analysis I would need to include the following points:

Firstly, the small print in the Energy White Paper shows that future governments will pick up the tab for any unforeseen circumstance. For example, in the event of an accident, no commercial concern would be able to pay out the billions of pounds of compensation. A cap is to be set on decommissioning costs, so that the taxpayer will pay any outstanding dues. So, although the Bill states that nuclear power companies must operate as independent commercial concerns, in reality this will be impossible.

Secondly, even shiny new nuclear power stations produce radioactive waste. True, the waste produced would only add about 10% of volume to the existing nuclear waste legacy over their lifetime, but it would increase fivefold the amount of the deadliest, long-lasting type. Although the Bill states companies must pay for the repository facility, it is not currently known by how much, and how the cost will be calculated. This new high level waste will have to be stored at each site because it will be too dangerous to be stored underground for at least 50 years. There is as yet no public statement on how this waste will be managed in the interim, and what potential dangers there are to the public.

Thirdly, the Government is pressing ahead very quickly with the construction of a deep geological repository ( five times the size of the Royal Albert Hall) to put in all these wastes. The Committee for Radioactive Waste Management, which recommended this as the least worst option, was more cautious, recommending that there was still more research to be done. As the Chairman mentioned the other day, there is nowhere in the world where there has been one built. We recommend a slower approach here, with a greater practical understanding before action is taken.

Fourthly, during the coming months all county councils in England and Wales (Scotland has refused to consider geological disposal) will be asked to express interest in hosting this deep geological repository. There are promises of financial inducements. It will be up to our elected local politicians to decide whether the cost will be worth it. East Anglia is a good prospect, with good communications and large infrastructures nearby. East Anglia could well become the radiation heartland of the United Kingdom.

Public meeting on Bradwell, Mersea MICA centre 22 Jan 7pm Added: 17 January 2008 15:07

This is an article from the Mersea Courier:

BRADWELL PUBLIC MEETING
Tuesday 22 January
7pm MICA

There is a more important aspect to this public meeting about decommissioning than appears at first sight.

For 40 years a large quantity of Fuel Element Debris (FED) has been collected in the vaults under the Power Station. This is highly radioactive and if left too long or comes in contact with water, it can ignite. It is nearing its “sell by date”.

The original plan was to encapsulate it and store it safely, but now Bradwell are planning a plant to dissolve it, not in Carbonic acid but in Nitric acid to reduce the volume, but not the radioactivity, to pass the remains through a filter system to reduce the radioactivity and release the remaining liquid into the Blackwater.

It has also been suggested that having installed the new plant at Bradwell permission will be given to take similar waste from other stations.

The rest of the decommissioning is, after only 5 years, at a standstill from lack of funding and there are many years of work to go before they can begin to think of dismantling the highly radioactive graphite reactors, which in itself takes 10 years, and currently nowhere to put them.

The problems are massive and there are some serious questions to be asked, before we get involved in the issues around a possible new power station on the land adjacent to it, which may or may not happen in the end.

Bradwell are currently being taken to Court by the Environment Agency for a historical long term leak which has caused ground contamination.

It is in the interests of Mersea to protect our estuary and our mudflats from further contamination, so please come along on 22 January and hear what they say which has not been put on the poster. It is important to question the proposals.

Bobby Teague
Member of FED sub-group Bradwell LCLC

Letter on radioactive waste Added: 15 January 2008 18:02

Published in the Colchester Evening Gazette Jan 15:
Bernard Jenkin expresses interest in seeing that communities adjacent to a new nuclear power plant at Bradwell are financially compensated (Gazette 11 January). Unfortunately none of us can ever be financially compensated. The small print in the Energy White Paper shows that future governments will pick up the tab for any unforeseen circumstance. For example, in the event of an accident, no commercial concern would be able to pay out the billions of pounds of compensation. So, although the Bill states that nuclear power companies must operate as independent commercial concerns, in reality this will be impossible.

The tax payer is paying around £70 billion pounds to make the old nuclear wastes safe. The radioactive waste produced by new nuclear power plants would only add about 10% of volume to the nuclear waste legacy over their lifetime, but would increase fivefold the amount of the deadliest, long-lasting type. Although the Bill states companies must pay for the storage facility, it is not currently known by how much, and how the cost will be calculated.

The Government is pressing ahead very quickly with the construction of a deep geological repository ( five times the size of the Royal Albert Hall) to put in all these wastes. The Committee for Radioactive Waste Management, which recommended this as the least worst option, was much more cautious, recommending that there was still much more research to be done. As the Chairman mentioned the other day, there is nowhere in the world where there has been one built. Surely caution must prevail?

Within the coming months all county councils in England and Wales (Scotland has refused to consider geological disposal) will be asked to express interest in hosting this radioactive waste facility. There are promises of financial inducements. It will be up to our elected local politicians to decide whether the cost will be worth it.

Yours sincerely

Val Mainwood
Bradwell for Renewable Energy

Halcrow report on coastal defences Added: 13 January 2008 11:55

: http://www.british-energy.com/documents/halcrow_review.PDF Halcrow report: http://www.british-energy.com/documents/halcrow_review.PDF

Bradwell's new station could be subject to flooding Added: 13 January 2008 11:52

Nuclear plants 'need better flood protection'Nick Mathiason The Observer, Sunday January 13 2008

Advertising guide License/buy our content About this articleClose This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday January 13 2008 on p1 of the Business news & features section. It was last updated at 23:47 on January 12 2008. Emergency measures will be needed to protect nuclear power stations from the effect of tidal surges as extreme weather patterns increase, according to a wide-ranging body of experts.

A study last year by the Met Office commissioned by nuclear firm British Energy said that 'increases in future surge heights of potentially more than a metre could, when combined with wind speed increases, threaten some sites unless existing defences are enhanced.'

British Energy, which runs nine reactors, said it is mindful of the risks, having commissioned Halcrow, the engineering consultancy, to devise contingency plans and beef up defences. This is likely to add 2 per cent to the £2.8bn cost of each reactor. Nuclear reactors tend to be sited on the coast to access large quantities of water needed for cooling.

This weekend the Department for Business and Enterprise said: 'The potential impact of flooding, and taking into account climate trends, would clearly be an important consideration in any future siting assessment. It would, of course, need to be considered alongside the potential for coastal sites to be protected from rising sea levels.'

A leading nuclear consultant suggested risks to reactors could be serious if a reactor failure coincided with a surge in tides, making it difficult for emergency services to rescue the situation.

The government's decision to build new reactors led last week to rows over how much public money will be needed to pay for them. 'This is one more nail in the nuclear coffin,' said Caroline Lucas, a Green MEP. 'As far as I can see the government has not factored this into its decision.'

Bradwell meeting at Mersea 22 January at 7pm Added: 10 January 2008 14:21

This will start at 6.30 for 7pm, and will be held at the MICA Centre. It is open to all who are interested. The subject will be the progress made to date on decomissioning.

Press Release 10 January Added: 09 January 2008 21:14

BRADWELL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
www.brare.co.uk

PRESS RELEASE

NEW NUCLEAR POWER STATION AT BRADWELL – A FAILURE OF NERVE



Gordon Brown is promising to take tough decisions. One of these “tough decisions” will be announced this coming Thursday, when the latest version of the Energy Bill will be published, and a new generation of nuclear power stations will be announced. Among the top favourites is the British Energy site at Bradwell-on-Sea, home to a Magnox site in a state of decommissioning.

This long-established community group argues that, far from being a brave move, it is one of political treachery and cowardice. Political treachery, because the original Paper in 2002 proved the case for a non-nuclear future, with a combination of energy conservation measures and a whole array of renewable energy options.

Ever since the publication of this Paper, its substance has been eroded by vested interests. False arguments have been put up about nuclear electricity reducing carbon emissions, omitting the fact that only a small proportion of energy is actually electricity, and a minority proportion of that is nuclear.

Gordon Brown’s failure to take on board the radical options is a tragedy. He could have instigated an exploration of decentralised and micro generation facilities, questioned how effective the National Grid really is, he could have looked at the provision of energy from the concept of supply rather than demand, he could have initiated deep measures to encourage energy conservation. There are so many exciting ideas out there that will be snuffed out, not to mention many business and employment opportunities.

And what of the people of Essex?

This group has been intensively involved in working with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the local site company on its decommissioning options and methods. We are trying to protect the Blackwater Estuary from further excesses, and are about to start an engagement with the site licensing company on an exploration of possible effects of the decommissioning process.

In 1986 this group, then known as the Shut Down Bradwell Campaign, sat down in the road with Bradwell villagers in order to stop Nirex forcing their way in with their pile drivers for somewhere to put their nuclear waste. We saw them off then. Now we have the same intractable issues raising their heads again. We will not give up.

ENDS

Research that the Government will ignore Added: 31 December 2007 10:57

Here are two recent reports on economics and security of supply of nuclear power from the Sussex Energy Group. This evidence was presented as part of the new nuclear consultation, and has been ignored by the government, as next week they will announce a new generation of nuclear power stations, one of which will be at Bradwell. Their full consultation is available from a link in the papers.


http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/documents/economics_brief_webonly.pdf


http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/documents/security_brief_webonly.pdf Sussex Energy Group

New nuclear likely for Bradwell Added: 29 December 2007 12:27

As we stand at the threshold of the New Year and wonder what it will bring, there cannot be many safer predictions than that 2008 will see the rebirth of nuclear power. Hint after hint has been dropped by ministers that an announcement is imminent about new nuclear plants at existing sites, with Sizewell in Suffolk, Dungeness in Kent, Hinkley Point in Somerset and Bradwell in Essex firm favourites.

Telegraph 28th December 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/28/earthlog128.xml new nuclear for Bradwell

New nuclear power station at Bradwell? Added: 27 November 2007 17:37

British Energy has earmarked Bradwell and Sizewell, among others, to herald a new fleet of nuclear reactors. It believes work on flood defences will make the proposition viable.

Response to nuclear waste consultation Added: 19 November 2007 12:06

BRADWELL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

Response to the MRWS Consultation

We are a group in North Essex that involves itself in sustainable energy matters, and, working in collaboration with the now defunct nuclear power station site, aims to achieve decommissioning with as little impact as possible upon the immediate environment. Our view on nuclear power generation is that it is unsustainable because of its long-term human and environmental impact.

Given the troubled history of the NIREX intervention in the eighties at Bradwell, people in North Essex have rather dusty views on nuclear waste matters. We felt very strongly that the group needed to represent these people by trying to tackle the thorny problem of what to do with the radioactive waste generated by stations such as the Magnox at Bradwell. Therefore we were happy to take part in the CoRWM stakeholder engagement plan.

In general we were pleased with the result of the CoRWM findings. It reflected our push for recognising the uncertainties that still exist regarding geological disposal. We pressed very hard for storage rather than disposal, because the latter is still uncertain in technology and in intergenerational equity. We insisted on the primacy of R&D, in particular with regard to interim storage, as for the next forty years at least, that will be all we will have. (And who knows what will happen beyond then?) Most importantly, the emphasis on storage and R&D would leave options open for people in forty years time to decide for themselves.

Therefore we were most disappointed to see the hijacking of the first CoRWM report by the Government. Within three days it was trumpeting geological disposal as the “solution”. Since then events have progressed quickly, with “volunteering community” schemes being researched, and NIREX becoming absorbed into the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

What seemed like an open and intelligent way forward has been scuppered. The person in the street has now fallen back on the “mistrust them all” argument.

Vox pop

Here are some of the comments I get on the street, on market stalls and at places like the local Coop:

· The Government is hurrying so they can say that there can be new nuclear power stations because there will be a place for the waste to go.
· People do not trust local politicians to do the job properly. What role would my local parish/town council have in saying whether we have a repository in our area?
· How will we know if our Council is interested? They are not going to tell us!
· What are the bribes going to be? Who will benefit from them?
· How come you can suddenly have these sites almost anywhere?
· We used to be told that the geology was unsuitable everywhere except the Grampians
· The geological experiment at Sellafield failed – how come they know all about it now?
· How do we know the radioactivity is not going to escape, in the short term or in the future?

These somewhat bellicose views reflect BRARE’s concerns too. Furthermore:

· The Government must pause and take stock, by re-visiting all the CoRWM Recommendations. It is not enough to cherry-pick.
· On reading these Recommendations, it is implicit that there is much work to be done on how to get to grips with the uncertainties and technical difficulties, and how to move forward with society at large. This will take time and should not be rushed.
· This includes CoRWM’s view that it is not responsible for any discourse or action on new build, and that it is dealing solely with legacy wastes. If the Government brings new build into the equation, the good groundwork already done by CoRWM will be lost, as many stakeholders and members of the public will be alienated. After all, we don’t know yet how to deal with legacy wastes. We should not therefore be creating more.
· Geological disposal should not be heralded as a “solution”. The regulatory bodies now accept that eventually there will be seepage into the environment. There has to be realistic discussion about this. Much talk is optimistic – nowhere has a functioning repository. The vagaries of geology, climate, type and volume of waste, mean there can be no blueprint.
· Regarding volunteer communities, how is such an entity to be defined? Given the hierarchy of local government decision-making, will the people nearest the repository have the greatest say, and most of the money? How truly representative of the population is local government? How is the person in the street going to have their say? There needs to be a site where all councils who have expressed interest can be listed.
· Has the terrorist threat to communities been explored in detail?
· It is understood that any minor geological problems can be ironed out by technology, and that technology can be adapted to a potential site. Has this research been published and peer reviewed? Have the scientific and regulatory goalposts been moved since the NIREX Rock Characterisation exploration at Sellafield?
· We feel there is confusion over the issue of retrievability in the CoRWM consultations. The public in general liked this issue, which suggests storage to be preferable, as there is a measure of control. The idea of phased disposal is surely an oxymoron. Nobody is likely to want to go to the trouble and expense of retrieving waste that has been stored for geological disposal. The lack of control that disposal implies weighs heavily with the public.

Bradwell loses out with NDA Added: 09 November 2007 10:05

PRESS RELEASE

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority cuts back on decommissioning Bradwell

Bradwell for Renewable Energy
www.brare.co.uk

This group of people in Essex condemns the plans for the cut-back of the magnox stations, including Bradwell. (NDA report page 23)

Local stakeholders feel betrayed, because six years of dialogue with all interested parties on the best way forward for decommissioning led the NDA to state publicly that it would aim for clearance in 25 years. A recent local site end point consultation for the Bradwell Local Community Liaison Council resulted in local people wanting total clearance of the site. In denying the NDA funding, the Government is reneging on its promise to take stakeholders into account.

There are so many problems to be overcome in decommissioning these old stations – for example there is as yet no clear idea as to what to do with the graphite moderators of this plant. (NDA report page 18). How long is this plant to be mothballed for? What measures will be taken to remediate the situation?

We are further alarmed by the NDA thinking aloud that some money might be achieved from commercial operations, including building new nuclear power stations. (NDA report page 17). This is a disastrous idea, throwing one problem in to solve another, with as yet no idea as to how to deal with the nuclear waste.

The NDA is in a structural mess, not of its own making. As a body, run by Government, dealing with legacy wastes such as the magnoxes and Sellafield, it had respect from all, including local stakeholders. The Government has muddied the waters by adding commercial components to its work, with funding being contingent to a certain extent by these commercial operations.

We agree that the most intractable of problems, Sellafield and Dounreay, must have priority. However the package must be dealt with as a whole, or we leave future generations to clear up the mess we have made.

ENDS

E of England positive about nuclear? Added: 06 November 2007 09:24

HE East of England has become more positive about nuclear power as an energy option and is strongly in favour of wind power, a survey has shown. A poll, commissioned by EDF Energy ahead of today's Queen's Speech and a final decision by the Government on the nuclear power option, found a net 9% in favour of nuclear power stations in the region.



East Anglian Daily Times 5th Nov 2007

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/businessnews/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=Business&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=Business&itemid=IPED05%20Nov%202007%2016%3A14%3A24%3A900 E of England positive about nuclear?

Essex Wildlife Trust against wind farm Added: 03 November 2007 15:05

The Essex Wildlife Trust has lodged an appeal against the Earls Hall Wind turbine plan at St Osyth because one of the turbines is too near a bat population. The informal view is that it could be sorted out by a re-siting of this turbine.

East Anglian Battle lines drawn Added: 02 November 2007 10:03

The battle lines between East Anglian MPs over whether to build a new generation of nuclear power stations can be revealed by the EDP today . A poll of the region's MPs shows how some are preparing to defy their party line and vote against atomic power and how others believe we must have new nuclear power stations - such as a Sizewell C plant in Suffolk - to meet the nation's future energy needs.

East Anglian Daily Press 29th Oct 2007
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED28%20Oct%202007%2021%3A22%3A18%3A033 E Anglian Battle lines drawn

NDA plans in disarray Added: 02 November 2007 09:56

Union leaders are seeking talks with the Government over reports that clean-up work at defunct nuclear reactors in the south of England is to be halted as funding is moved to similar operations at Sellafield.

Nelson Leader 26th Oct 2007
http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/latest-north-west-news/Union-wants-talks-over-nuclear.3420828.jp

East Anglian Daily Times 26th Oct 2007
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED26%20Oct%202007%2011%3A13%3A46%3A477

East Anglian Daily Times 27th Oct 2007
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED26%20Oct%202007%2018%3A23%3A46%3A620

The GMB says seeking a private sector solution is delaying the clean up of old sites and the building of new stations needed for energy security and to lower carbon emissions.

GMB Press Release 26th Oct 2007
http://www.gmb.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=96192 NDA plans indisarray

Bradwell to be mothballed? Added: 02 November 2007 09:53

Clean-up work at all of the defunct nuclear reactors in the South of England is to be halted amid funding problems at the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, The Times has learnt. In its business plan, to be published next month, the NDA is expected to say that resources will be moved to Sellafield and that clean-up work will be suspended at the Sizewell A, Dungeness A, Hinkley Point A, Bradwell and Berkeley magnox reactors.

Times 26th Oct 2007

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article2741526.ece
Bradwell to be mothballed?

Dissolution plans for elsewhere Added: 24 October 2007 11:01

Brare is engaged in a stakeholder engagement exercise to decide whether Kavaerner's dissolution plant plans are suitable for Bradwell
Earlier this month Aker Kvaerner was awarded a £16m contract by Magnox Electric. The project involves the design, building and installation of a plant for the retrieval and encapsulation of wet intermediate level wastes (ILW) at Hunterston A Site in West Kilbride, Scotland.

Newcastle Evening Gazette 23rd Oct 2007
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2007/10/23/nuclear-orders-boost-for-aker-tees-performance-51140-19994493/ Dissolution elsewhere

Bradwell wind farm allowed Added: 24 October 2007 10:47

Here is the link for the Appeal Document that has gone in favour of the wind installation

http://www.bradwell.info/docs/Decision.pdf Appeal decision Bradwell wind farm documentwww.bradwell.info/docs/Decision.pdf Appeal decision

Appeal decision document on Bradwell wind farm Added: 20 October 2007 15:36

http://www.bradwell.info/docs/Decision.pdf Appeal decision

Bradwell wind farm to go ahead Added: 11 September 2007 11:25

We are happy to announce that the appeal by the providers has been allowed, and that the installation of a group of turbines on the Dengie peninsula will be allowed.

Conservative Energy Strategy? Added: 23 July 2007 13:17

In November 2006 BRARE sent a report on nuclear economics to Colchester North MP Bernard Jenkin. As previous Shadow Energy Minister, we were eager to have his views on this paper. After a polite acknowledgement, we as yet have had no news. And this in spite of a recent reminder. Does the Conservative Party have an overall Energy Policy, we wonder?

Bradwell and decomissioning discharges into the Blackwater Estuary Added: 16 July 2007 10:51

A Best Practical Environmental Option study is underway to decide the best way of reducing the amount of, and disposing of, fuel element debris which has lain in the fuel ponds on site since the early days. This is part of the decommissioning (dismantling) process. BRARE is taking part in stakeholder input. One meeting has already been held, and another is scheduled for early September. The BPEO is on the Bradwell website at http://www.nuclearsites.co.uk/page.php?pageID=1327&PHPSESSID=6e2fe827d99de1668722082c8f6968d4

It is a complicated document - if you have any questions or want to relay any concerns, contact the BRARE web mail. Or ask the site. Your concerns do not have to be technical - the public have valid views on the wider aspects of how activity on the site can affect them.

National Stakeholder Group Meeting Added: 16 July 2007 10:44

BRARE represented Bradwell Local Community Liaison Council at the meeting above in Manchester. This meeting is a gathering of all site stakeholder groups with regulators, industry members, etc. Stakeholders can hold all parties to account over their actions. A detailed report will follow by early August.

British Energy difficulties for new build? Added: 08 July 2007 12:05

British Energy

British Energy could be forced to give up some of its reactor sites, denting its ambitions to host all of the UK's next generation of nuclear power stations. The nuclear generator has been in talks with European energy groups EDF, RWE and E.ON about forming a consortium to build the new reactors, which will be on existing sites. British Energy - part-owned by the Government - wants to sell its sites or exchange them for involvement in a consortium. But it has emerged that the Government could take back ownership of the company's oldest reactors. This could complicate British Energy's negotiations with potential partners if it cannot guarantee that it will retain all its sites.

Independent on Sunday 8th July 2007

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2744853.ece

British Energy sizes up Bradwell Added: 08 July 2007 11:56

New nukes,

Two of Britain's largest power com-panies, Scottish & Southern Energy and Centrica, have teamed up to submit a joint proposal to British Energy about building a new generation of nuclear power stations. It is understood that the duo are keen to partner British Energy in the event that the Government gives the go-ahead for new nuclear stations later this year. A British-led consortium would almost certainly be welcomed by the Government. Although neither Scottish & Southern nor Centrica generates nuclear power, they would be able to offer British Energy vital access to retail customers. Both already buy a proportion of British Energy's output. The proposal is one of a number being considered by the board of British Energy, led by chief executive Bill Coley. German power giants E.On and RWE and their French counterpart EdF have submitted proposals in recent weeks. Vattenfall, the Swedish nuclear company, is also un! derstood to have expressed an interest.

Sunday Telegraph 1st July 2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/07/01/cncentrica101.xml
Latest news is that they are about to have a chat with local politicians (BRARE editorial)

New nukes for East Anglia Added: 09 June 2007 10:31

Nuclear Siting

THE Government has indicated that it is “more likely than not” that Sizewell and Bradwell will house the next generation of nuclear power plants, despite MPs' fears that rising sea levels means the use of coastal sites is “asking for trouble.” During Commons questions a number of MPs raised concerns over the threat that global warming will have on costal communities and major buildings sited next to the sea. Labour's Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West ) pleaded Trade and Industry Secretary Alastair Darling to look at the appropriateness of building on coastal sites. “It is likely that by 2050 sea levels will have risen by 40 centimetres at least and that storm waves will get higher,” said Mr Marris. “To use existing sites, most of which are on the coast whether in the South East or the rest of the UK, is asking for difficulty for future generations. I would beg you to look very, very careful! ly at the appropriateness or otherwise of coastal sites for new nuclear build.”

East Anglian Daily Times 7th June 2007

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/politics/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=Politics&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=zpolitics&itemid=IPED07%20Jun%202007%2013%3A03%3A27%3A887

The proposed dissolution plant June 6 2007 Added: 08 June 2007 19:52

There has been a lot in the papers about a proposed dissolution plant, and concerns about discharges into the Blackwater. Some of us have been having meetings with the Site Manager and the Environment Agency to find out the details. Nothing has been decided yet. A BPEO has been done (best practical environmental option). A member of the LCLC was present at this process. At the Local Liaison meeting on Wednesday, BRARE stated that the most effective form of stakeholder engagement brings the public on board right at the beginning. The station has consequently offered to work with several of us at the meeting on this, so that views from every quarter can be factored in. It will be a very long time before there is a decision of any sort.

Any enquiries or requests for more detail, contact BRARE.

Lights out in Essex Added: 21 May 2007 11:17

Tonight an experiment begins in Maldon and Dunmow. Essex County Council's energy saving scheme includes switching off street lights between midnight and 5am. If successful, this scheme will be extended throughout the county.

will local people get a say? Added: 21 May 2007 10:37

Planning

Major new developments including nuclear power stations and airport runways could be forced through as part of a major overhaul of planning in the UK Friends of the Earth said today (17 May). The proposals, details of which will be published in a Government White Paper expected next week, will leave affected communities with little or no say in how their area is developed. Friends of the Earth is calling on the Government to rethink its plans and introduce a planning system which allows people a say on the decisions that affect them.

FoE Press Release 17th May 2007

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/planning_white_paper_major_16052007.html

Bradwell LocalCommunityLiaisonCouncil meeting Added: 18 May 2007 11:43

The next one is on June 6th 10.30 am at Vaulty Manor, Heybridge. This is a public meeting and all are welcome to attend

Nuclear waste proposal coming to you Added: 02 May 2007 09:54

CoRWM's report "Implementing a Partnership Approach to Radioactive Waste Management", April 2007 is now available.

CoRWM website

http://www.corwm.org/pdf/2146%20-%20%20Report%20to%20Government%202007%20-%20final.pdf

This document shows that local councils will be invited to consider whether they would like a nuclear waste repository in their area.
Committee for Radioactive Waste Management advice on how to choose a nuclear repository sitewww.corwm.org/pdf/2146%20-%20%20Report%20to%20Government%202007%20-%20final.pdf

Land grab for new nuke at Bradwell Added: 29 April 2007 18:55

British Energy has told rivals wanting to use its sites to build a new generation of nuclear reactors to submit expressions of interest by the end of the month. The Government is set to publish its long-delayed energy White Paper in the middle of next month. It is expected to sanction new reactors to replace the UK's ageing plants. British Energy, in which the Government has a 65 per cent stake, owns the sites which are most suitable for development, making them hugely valuable. Once the Government gives the green light, British Energy wants to press ahead as quickly as possible with plans to be part of a new-build programme. It has been in informal talks with European rivals EDF, RWE and E.ON over the past six months about forming consortiums to carry out the work. So far, no tie-ups have been formed, but British Energy has told the trio to come up with concrete plans for how they would use the sites - and what they propose to give the nuclear generator in return f or providing the land. The Government could force British Energy to sell the sites to the highest bidder. The preferred option for the company, which the Government rescued from collapse five years ago, is for it to be given part-ownership of the new reactors in return for access to the sites. The generator would also like a role in operating the reactors.

Independent on Sunday 29th April 2007

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2494118.ece
Land grab for new nuke at Bradwellnews.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2494118.ece

Want a radioactive waste dump near you? Added: 18 April 2007 13:51

Nuclear Waste

Defra is planning a three-month public consultation this summer on how it should go about selecting sites for disposal of nuclear waste. The consultation, which will only be concerned with long-term storage sites, will seek ideas from interested parties across the UK on the best way to proceed. It is hoped that the system will end up being voluntary, with councils offering to host storage sites in return for financial and community incentives. Once the method for choosing the sites has been finalised, site selection including geological suitability will be made. The recently formed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will be In charge of constructing and maintaining the facilities. Completion of the first storage facility could be as long as 35 years away.

Renewal and Regeneration News 17th April 2007

http://www.regen.net/pp/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=FullDetails&articleUID=6dcdaec8-1c6c-4cf3-abc4-9c10927a69f7&newsid=650821
Want a radioactive waste dump near you?www.regen.net/pp/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=FullDetails&articleUID=6dcdaec8-1c6c-4cf3-abc4-9c10927a69f7&newsid=650821

Bradwell site end point consultation Added: 04 April 2007 13:38

Bradwell Local Liaison Council, in accordance with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's guidelines, set about consulting the local population on how it envisaged the nuclear power site once it had been decommissioned. It commissioned a MORI poll, which showed that most people preferred the site to be delicensed and returned to nature.

The LCLC is in the process of issuing a statement to that effect.

New nuclear power station at Bradwell? Press Release Added: 04 April 2007 12:15

BRADWELL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY



CONDEMNATION OF BRITISH ENERGY’S PLANS FOR A NEW NUCLEAR POWER STATION AT BRADWELL


This group of Essex residents condemns utterly the plans that British Energy has outlined for the Bradwell site.

Throughout recent years informal opinion within the nuclear industry in general regards it as an unsuitable site due to:

The inaccessibility of the site, with poor transport links
The area of the site and around the site being subject to future flooding

We share these environmental concerns.

We are further concerned by recent events that show that the Government is intent on pushing through new nuclear build without thought of the democratic process:

Its intent to modify planning laws so that local residents have less say in whether a nuclear power station can be built

The cynical attempt by this Government to bypass genuine public consultation as witnessed by the condemnation of the High Court, which agreed with Greenpeace and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities that the recent consultation process was inadequate.

The nuclear Emperor’s clothes are laid bare:

What we are seeing is:

£800 for every person in the UK in taxes to attempt to clean up the historic wastes of the nuclear industry

The honest attempts at tackling clean-up being hijacked by the nuclear lobby to use it as an excuse to build more new nuclear power stations

British Energy’s commercial desperation (to whose continued existence they must thank the tax payer) that means it has to promote a site that is manifestly unsuitable.

Where do we, the public, put our trust?

Bradwell fuel rods removed Added: 03 December 2006 09:52

Clare Spottiswoode, deputy chairman of British Energy said that, except for France and Finland, it is "highly unlikely" that any plants will be built in Britain or the rest of Europe before 2020. Europe is looking to the UK and will not undertake a new nuclear station until Britain does, she said. It will take until 2020 for the UK governments to put in place a proper planning regime and regulations for new construction. Platts Nuclear News Flashes 30th November 2006 Bradwell Officials from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and Civil Nuclear Security recently confirmed all fuel had successfully been removed from Bradwell Power Station - 99 per cent of the site's radioactivity. Work began on decommissioning the 50-year-old power station in 2002. The plant's two reactors were defuelled and 41,000 radioactive particles were transported to Sellafield power station in Cumbria.

Essex Chronicle 1st Dec 2006

http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?

Bradwell LCLC meeting 6 Dec Added: 21 November 2006 08:50

Bradwell Local Community Liaison Council meeting will be held on 6 December at 10.30am at Vaulty Manor Heybridge. The public can attend, and comment. Any queries, email the website.

Councils asked for nuclear dump sites Added: 28 October 2006 12:24

Every Council in the land is being asked to consider whether they have a store with the potential to house nuclear waste. Financial softeners will be part of the package.

Appeal lodged against wind turbine decision Added: 28 October 2006 12:18

Npower Renewables has launched an appeal against Maldon District Council's decision to refuse permission for 10 wind turbines on the Dengie Peninsula. More details to follow.

Bradwell meeting Mersea 31 Oct Added: 09 October 2006 11:10

The Mersea Island Association has called for a public meeting with the Nuclear Decommsisioning Authority, the Station and regulatory bodies to discuss the plans for decommissioning, and how it affects the area. It is to be held at the MICA Centre on October 31st at 7.30pm. Anyone who is interested is welcome.

Terror info denied Added: 10 September 2006 12:16

NUCLEAR industry officials have agreed to discuss access to “secret” Sizewell B documents following a claim that the public has a right to know the extent of the risk of a terrorist strike. Lack of public access to the documents - on the advice of the security services - was described by a leading environmental consultant yesterday as a “scandal”. Sizewell B, British Energy's flagship plant, is considered one of the high risk industrial targets for terrorists, although the company insists that the deliberate crashing of an aircraft on to the reactor dome is unlikely to lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. However, Pete Wilkinson, who runs a national environmental consultancy from offices at Halesworth, has expressed concern about the vulnerability to terrorist attack of another part of the plant - the concrete and steel-lined “pond” where highly radioactive spent fuel rods are stored. Mr Wilkinson, a member of the Gove rnment-appointed Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, has been unable to obtain access to documents assessing the risk of a terrorist strike leading to the loss of the 1,400 tonnes of coolant water.

East Anglian Daily Times 9th Sept 2006

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=znews&itemid=IPED08%20Sep%202006%2023%3A07%3A04%3A363
terror info deniedwww.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=znews&itemid=IPED08%20Sep%202006%2023%3A07%3A04%3A363

Oil burning over Added: 01 September 2006 08:10

Much to the relief of Mersea Islanders, Bradwell nuclear power station has announced that it has finished burning lightly radioactive oils and solvents for good. Any further material will go to be processed at Shanks.

Although a long-fought campaign did not halt the burning, it is to be hoped that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and relative bodies will have learned that local populations' views must be taken seriously, and that they must be fully consulted.

Nuclear waste transport Added: 22 August 2006 09:32

Waste Transport

THE Ministry of Defence has defended its decision to transport nuclear material through Essex villages without informing local councils about the timing or their content. Last week, after enquiries made by Sible Hedingham Parish Council, it was revealed that nuclear material had been moved through the village on more than one occasion, without prior notice to the authority.

East Anglian Daily Times 21st August 2006

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=znews&itemid=IPED20%20Aug%202006%2022%3A54%3A37%3A293
Nuclear waste transportwww.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=znews&itemid=IPED20%20Aug%202006%2022%3A54%3A37%3A293

Wind turbine news - St Osyth Added: 16 August 2006 11:45

Some weeks ago NPower asked Brare to look at a potential site at Earls Hall Farm, near St Osyth. It is for five turbines, to be dotted around quite a large area. I was impressed by their siting as being inconspicuous, and not affecting farming practices. 10% of Tendring District electricity could be generated each year by these turbines. As far as I can see the omens are good - local councillors seem in favour. NPower are holding an exhibition at St Osyth Village Hall, Clacton Road, on Friday 22 September at 2pm-7pm, and on Saturday 23rd September from 11am-4pm. Please go and support.

Bradwell Wind Farm

NPower will probably call for a public inquiry. More news anon. Latest excuse - the turbines would interfere with Southend Airport!!!!

Flooding risks affects new nuclear Added: 25 July 2006 10:03

Dangers in new nuclear sites

Sir: Chief scientist Sir David King has done a great public service in convincing top policy-makers, including the Prime Minister, of the dread threat of climate change, but he has done a serious disservice in merging scientific analysis with policy prescription, no more clearly than in his atomic advocacy ("We have no alternative to nuclear power", 13 July). In one area, his analysis of the impacts of coastal erosion and the threat of inundation from climate-change-driven, sea-level rise actually undermines his proposal to build nuclear plants, which Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently indicated to MPs would start being built on existing reactor sites.

Last December, Britain's nuclear-waste management agency, Nirex, published a report as part of their input into the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (Corwm)'s evaluation of the UK's nuclear-waste management options over the next 300 years.

Their summary of "Climate and Landscape Change" at coastal nuclear sites operated by the nuclear quango, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) demonstrates that eight of the 11 present sites - which include the favourite candidate sites for new reactors, Sizewell, Bradwell, Dungeness, Hinkley Point, Berkeley, Oldbury, Dounreay and Sellafield - are judged either "likely" or "very likely" to suffer from erosion or inundation or both.

Letter from Dr David Lowry in The Independent 25 July

No turbines at church Added: 15 July 2006 08:40

NO TURBINES AT CHURCH (Chelmsford & Maldon Advertiser)

THE COUNTRY'S oldest church will remain undisturbed in its isolated coastal position after plans for a wind farm nearby were turned down.

Maldon District Council threw out the application for 10 turbines to be installed at Hockley Farm, Bradwell, last Thursday, because it would "significantly detract from the setting of the church."

Historic St Peter's-on-the-Wall dates back to the 7th Century and attracts visitors from all over the world.

Members decided npower's scheme for 10 turbines - each 121 metres high with three-bladed rotors - plus ancillary equipment and a sub station would be too intrusive for the rural Dengie Peninsula site and ancient chapel. ...

Maldon District Council say no to turbines Added: 14 July 2006 10:41

Letter from the Chief Planning Officer:

Further to your representation on the above application I can inform you that the Council has decided to refuse permission. In reaching this decision the Council has taken into account the provisions of the development Plan and all other material considerations, which include the comments made in your letter.

A copy of the planning decision notice, which sets out the reason(s) for refusing permission, can be inspected on normal working days at the Council's Offices in Princes Road, Maldon, between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday to Thursday and 8.30am to 4.30pm on Friday.

Yours faithfully

James Doe
Chief Planning and development Services Officer

Colchester Borough Council reverses its decision Added: 30 June 2006 16:57

Colchester Borough Council has changed its mind over objecting to the wind turbine development at Bradwell. Here is the letter from the Leader of the Council:

Colchester Borough Council
PO Box 884, Town Hall, Colchester, CO1 1FR
Telephone (01206) 282222 DX 729040 Colchester 15
Minicom (Textphone) (01206) 282266

Councillor Robert Davidson
Leader of the Council



Phone (01206) 282244

E-mail patocabinet@colchester.gov.uk

Fax (01206) 282233
Your ref

Our ref RD/LB
Mr Jackson
Maldon District Council
Planning and Development Services
Princes Road
MALDON CM9 5DL
Date 29 June 2006


Dear Mr Jackson

Consultation on FUL/MAL/06/00291 proposed wind farm at Bradwell-on-Sea

As Leader of Colchester Borough Council I thought it only right to alert you to the fact that through our Local Development Framework process we will be considering the benefits of greener energy schemes in line with the government’s latest guidelines.

Our officer’s response rightly was based on our existing planning policy but I think it is only right that you should know that we would be highly likely to support an application such as this which will provide a carbon neutral energy source for us all.

I urge you to approve this application.

Yours sincerely





Councillor Robert Davidson
Leader of the Council

Critique of Colchester Borough Council's objection to Bradwell wind turbines Added: 28 June 2006 15:14

BRARE IS really concerned about the decision-making process that has led the planning officer to reject NPower's proposal for ten wind turbines at Bradwell. There has been a lot of attention given to this project in the Colchester Borough area, and there are many in the area, West Mersea in particular (who would be affected) who welcome 10 wind turbines as part of their landscape.

Time is of the essence, as there are two meetings at Burnham, on 3 July and 6 July, after which a decision will be made.

To show you these concerns, we have extrapolated areas from the planning officer's letter, and have commented in square brackets:



"I am concerned that this Council was not consulted regarding identification of principal viewpoints used to inform the study, despite the proposal having considerable visual impact on Colchester Borough." [CBC were consulted at the scoping stage of the EIA and had full opportunity to input into the consideration of viewpoints. Essex CC were also a key consultee with regard to viewpoints].



"The EIA should include clarification as to the methodology used to assess the validity of principal visual nodes to the southern end of the borough, any additional points identified (particularly Layer Marney Tower, Wigborough and Peldon) and submitted for analysis and if acceptable agreement." [Colchester BC have had over a year to request these viewpoints further to consultation at the scoping stage and only raise issues after the application has been submitted].



"The ES gives insignificant weight to landscapes designated international, national and local importance within the proposals ZVI, particularly those designated RAMSAR (international), Layer Marney Tower (national - Grade 2 registered parkland) SAC, SPA and SSSI. It should also give clear analysis of any impact the proposal may have on these protected areas for assessment." [ The ZVI (Zone of Visual Influence) is a tool for looking at where the turbines might be visible from - ignoring vegetation. CBC confuse landscape issues with ecological issues. The ES does provide an analysis of potential impacts on relevant designated sites. Layer Marney Tower is around 17km away?!]



"Colchester Borough Council objects to the application as it is considered that the proposal will have a significant impact on Colchester Borough in visual terms (particularly the impact of proposal on principal view points to the south of the borough) as the proposed masts will be seen as elements that would necessarily lead to a fragmentation of the skyline. This through introduction of prominent vertical, manmade, moving elements into what is a primarily a static, shallow strip of land to the skyline with a strong horizontal bias, currently forming a subtle division that fully complements the scale of sea and sky." [ Interesting description, but not convincing.]

Colchester Borough Council's objection to Bradwell Wind Farm Added: 26 June 2006 19:47

Contact Sue Jackson
Colchester Borough Council
PO Box 889, Town Hall, Colchester CO1 1FL
Telephone (01206) 282222 DX 729040 Colchester 15
Minicom (Textphone) (01206) 282266

Planning, Protection and Licensing



Phone (01206) 282450

E-mail sue.jackson@colchester.gov.uk

Fax (01206) 282598
Your ref

Our ref SJ
Maldon District Council
Planning and Development Services
Princes Road
Maldon
CMG 5DL
Date 19th May 2006




Dear Mr Jackson

Consultation on FUL/MAL/06/00291 proposed wind farm at Bradwell-On-Sea

I refer to the above application and apologise for the delay in replying and trust that the following comments can be taken into consideration.

I am concerned that this Council was not consulted regarding identification of principal viewpoints used to inform the study, despite the proposal having considerable visual impact on Colchester Borough. The EIA should include clarification as to the methodology used to assess the validity of principal visual nodes to the southern end of the borough, any additional points identified (particularly Layer Marney Tower, Wigborough and Peldon) and submitted for analysis and if acceptable agreement.

Colchester Borough’s Landscape Character Assessment (2005) appears not to have been included in the ES. This, as with the national and county based assessments, should be included, with clear assessment of effects of the proposal on Landscape Character Areas (within the ZVI) Key Characteristics for assessment. This should be seen as particularly important as it would appear to be the only District/Borough level LCA with the proposals ZVI.

The ES gives insignificant weight to landscapes designated international, national and local importance within the proposals ZVI, particularly those designated RAMSAR (international), Layer Marney Tower (national - Grade 2 registered parkland) SAC, SPA and SSSI. It should also give clear analysis of any impact the proposal may have on these protected areas for assessment.




Continued……………………………………….
Page 2










Countryside Conservation Areas (CCA) should be recognized within the ES where they are justified through independent study, as within Colchester Borough where CCA’s have been assessed (using nationally recognized methodology - Countryside Agency guidelines) within Colchester Borough Councils ‘Review of Countryside Conservation Areas in Colchester Borough’.

The ES should include the impact that the proposal will have on Layer Marney Tower, nationally recognized as a Listed Grade 1 and the West Mersea Conservation Area, giving clear analysis of that impact for assessment.

Colchester Borough Council objects to the application as it is considered that the proposal will have a significant impact on Colchester Borough in visual terms (particularly the impact of proposal on principal view points to the south of the borough) as the proposed masts will be seen as elements that would necessarily lead to a fragmentation of the skyline. This through introduction of prominent vertical, manmade, moving elements into what is a primarily a static, shallow strip of land to the skyline with a strong horizontal bias, currently forming a subtle division that fully complements the scale of sea and sky.

Please take the above comments into consideration when the application is determined. If any additional information is submitted I would be pleased to receive a copy.

Yours sincerely





Sue Jackson
Principal Planning Officer

Bradwell wind farm decision meetings Added: 22 June 2006 14:01

Bradwell Windfarm Application to be Considered by Members of Maldon District Council


20 6 06

Maldon District Council has announced that two special meetings will be held to consider the application from NPower Renewables Ltd to site a Wind Farm at Hockley Farm, Bradwell on Sea, Essex.

Maldon District Council’s South Eastern Area Planning Committee will be the first to consider the application at a special meeting on Monday 3rd July, which will be held at the Council Offices, Princes Road, Maldon starting at 7.30pm.

A special meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee to consider the final decision will then be held on Thursday 6th July 2006 also at the Council Offices in Princes Road, Maldon and also starting at 7.30pm.

Bradwell Local Community Liaison Council meeting June 7th Added: 23 May 2006 09:44

The public is invited to attend, and air your views, and suggest ideas, at 3 Rivers Golf & Country Club 7 June 10.30am. Contact us for more details. Last minutes at: http://www.nuclearsites.co.uk/page.php?pageID=1285 Bradwell Local Community Liaison Council minutes

CPREssex says no to wind farm Added: 23 May 2006 09:20

The latest magazine from the Council for the Protection of Rural Essex has come out against the wind farm. If you are a member please write a letter with your views.

Bradwell to have new station? Added: 19 May 2006 10:44

Concerns are growing that Bradwell could once again be home to an active nuclear power station.


Essex Chronicle 18th May 2006

http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=170875&command=displayContent&sourceNode=170757&contentPK=14493057&folderPk=91138 Bradwell to have new station?

Contamination at Shoeburyness Added: 07 May 2006 11:05

Essex

A preliminary report into Ministry of Defence firing ranges and bomb testing areas at Shoeburyness has called for a more detailed study of contamination.

BBC 6th May 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/4980660.stm Contamination at Shoeburyness

Windy idea Added: 05 May 2006 09:56

To avoid further controversy and expense over the Horkesley Park scheme, why not try a new idea altogether? To make commercial use of the site, avoid extra traffic and visitors and be environmentally sustainable how about setting up a wind farm? There must be wind at the top of the hill, the sails are elegant, there are few people living nearby to complain about possible noise and it could assist in solving the looming energy crisis.

Letter Essex County Standard May 5 2005

50 years ago Added: 29 April 2006 10:35

It emerged at a public inquiry that the proposed atomic power station at Bradwell, if built, would probably be doubled in size in the years to come.

An engineer from the Central Electricity Authority, which proposed to build the £25 million power station, told the hearing at Bradwell that additional sites would be harder to find in the future.

The inquiry was told that only 32 objections had been received from Bradwell itself, a far larger had come from people living across the estuary in Mersea.

(Essex County Standard)

Chernobyl fall-out over NE Essex Added: 26 April 2006 15:49

BRADWELL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

www.brare.co.uk


PRESS RELEASE

Chernobyl cloud: new research shows possible effects on NE Essex

The upcoming twentieth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster has prompted a series of reports on its lasting effects. The International Atomic Energy Authority published a report in the autumn that downplayed these effects. This spring Greenpeace International published a report detailing results by Russian scientists that showed massive chronic health problems that have been passed on to future generations. Independent scientists Ian Fairlie and David Sumner concluded similarly in their report.

Today Bradwell for Renewable Energy (BRARE) has received information by respected statistician and former government scientist John Urquhart that pinpoints NE Essex ( part of NE Thames Health Authority) as having been affected by “black rain” (rain containing radioactive particles) which covered parts of Britain shortly after the event.He points to an increase in neo-natal deaths (birth to 4 weeks) during this period that mirrors the pathway of the cloud. His comparison of neo-natal deaths in parts of Essex that were not rained upon show a startling change in statistics. For example in Tower Hamlets, where rain did not fall, there was a drop over the two previous years. In areas where the rain fell there was an overall increase of 23%. Over NE Essex as a whole, where the rain fell there was an increase.

This report is not making wild accusations: it is laying the information out for all to see. Urquhart asks the relevant authorities to consider his findings, and in the light of their explorations, to revise the assumptions upon which the public’s safety is based.

BRARE’s position

The Chernobyl accident is the greatest public health hazard to date. Throughout the last twenty years research has been patchy and subject to political manipulation.

People in NE Essex need to know the truth about what has happened. We need the questions this report poses to be answered by the relevant authorities. We will never know the full impact of this accident. We can only be witnesses as the ghastly tale unfolds through the generations. But we can use improved knowledge to re-evaluate public risk and refine safety legislation.


ENDS

For a copy of the report, or details, contact BRARE

Bradwell wind farm support document Added: 18 April 2006 12:45

BRADWELL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

www.brare.co.uk

Bradwell Wind Farm Application 06/00291/FUL



This Essex-wide group, known informally as BRARE, would like to support the above application.

We have led the way in encouraging renewable energy in this region by inviting local councillors and Members of Parliament from Harwich to Southend to petition the Crown Estates in support of offshore wind farms in the area. We were therefore delighted when permission for establishing a wind farm at Gunfleet Sands was given. As far has we know, this is the first time a community has proactively advocated a specific method of energy supply. Gunfleet is a valuable contribution towards renewable energy requirements in the East of England, according to Government, and Maldon Council’s policy.

We therefore gladly recommend the establishment of a small number of turbines at the Dengie Peninsula. This is an ideal spot for wind generation. Some might regard these turbines as a form of intrusion. But it is our view that, compared with the neighbouring defunct nuclear power station, and the resultant decommissioning issues, together with the ever-onward march of global warming and its consequences, wind turbines are of light environmental impact.

Furthermore this small site will supply electricity to between 8,100 and 10,600 homes, a third of all homes in the Maldon district. Our experience is that the general public often feel powerless in front of such enormous challenges. The Dengie Peninsula and surrounding area are very likely to be affected by flooding and erosion, which will change the landscape for ever. This small installation gives the people of Maldon the ability to offset CO2 emissions on their own account. There is the added bonus in that the installation would give some income to farmers in the area. Local employment would be created during construction, thus boosting the rural economy.

We therefore urge Maldon Council to accept its responsibilities under Government policy, and grant permission for the installation of this wind farm.

French television visits Bradwell area Added: 29 March 2006 12:31

The week beginning 27 March Channel 3 TV, a French current affairs channel, interviewed the main protagonists on the fight over wind turbines and nuclear power. BRARE was able to give its opinion.

NPower submits application for 10 turbines at Bradwell Added: 13 March 2006 15:46

NPower has submitted a full Environmental Statement for plans to build 10 wind turbines on the Dengie Peninsula. These turbines would provide enough clean electricity for the average annual needs of 8.000-10.000 homes each year. The draft East of England Plan, published at the end of 2004, sets out a target of 14% of the region's electiricty needs to come from renewable sources by 2010. It is anticipated that 10% of this target would need to come from onshore technologies. It is now up to the planning committee of Maldon District Council to assess and approve the scheme.