2 hours ago
11
Radiation Free Lakeland and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities were joined by twelve groups and individuals in writing to Chancellor Rachel Reeves calling on her not to cut the funding for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in yesterday’s Autumn Statement.
The NDA is responsible for decommissioning operations at former nuclear power stations and the management of legacy radioactive waste, particularly at Sellafield.
Although opposed to new civil nuclear projects, and adamant that existing plants should be closed as soon as is practicably possible, in order to curtail future radioactive contamination and costs, the signatories recognise that the NDA plays ‘an indispensable role’ in dealing with the existing deadly legacy and that ‘these activities require sufficient public funding to continue efficiently but, most importantly, safely’.
The correspondents describe any reduction in the NDA’s funding for this work as ‘both illogical and bizarre’, especially as Labour ministers mistakenly remain committed to delivering new nuclear projects at Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C, and through the Small Modular Reactor competition which will lead to a still greater decommissioning challenge with yet more difficult-to-manage radioactive waste.
Trades unions representing workers in the nuclear industry have also expressed their grave concerns. Mike Clancy, General Secretary of the Prospect Union, and Gary Smith, General Secretary of GMB Union, wrote to Chancellor Reeves stating that ‘the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is facing severe budgetary pressures, which would result in cuts to high hazard and safety-related activities across the nuclear estate including at Dounreay and Sellafield Ltd. We fear that jobs will be impacted at Sellafield in particular. The consequent reduction in the volume of work that can be undertaken will inevitably reduce plant maintenance, accelerating the degradation of assets and bringing cuts to the skilled workforce.’
Despite government recognising that some radioactive waste storage facilities at Sellafield are in such a parlous state that they represent a ‘intolerable risk’, the National Audit Office has just published a critical report about expenditure at Sellafield which calls into question whether current operations represent ‘value for money’. The correspondents fear that if the government believes that Sellafield must focus on ‘value for money’ and do more with what money it has, or with even less money, that the clean up work will slow down or be less thorough or endanger workers, and that it will also be a false economy as decommissioning will take longer and so cost more money in the long-term.
Clean-up costs for dealing with the existing legacy of nuclear power at Sellafield are already collosal, standing at £136 billion, up from £84 billion in 2019; under a worse-case scenario the bill could run up to a whopping £253 billion.
Delays will also lead to more radiation being released from defective facilities into the Cumbrian environment, irrevocably contaminating land and watercourses and damaging public health, and the bigger bill will also hit UK taxpayers in their wallet.
Emeritus Professor Stephen Thomas of Greenwich University is also concerned by the focus on ‘value for money’:
“I find this (NAO) report problematic. It says NDA is not achieving value for money and NAO’s mission is to determine whether value for money is being achieved. But the implication of value for money is usually to determine if a voluntary task, eg building SZC, was worth it or whether the money should have been spent on alternative ways of meeting the policy goal. There is nothing discretionary about cleaning up Sellafield.
“The implicit assumption here of the finding of not value for money is that NDA is not efficient at doing its job, but I am not sure they offer any evidence for that. There could be three different explanations for the estimates going up every year and targets not being met.
“One is that NDA is inefficient at carrying out its tasks; another is it is bad at forecasting, it is being efficient doing the job, the estimate was just wrong; and third, it is impossible to forecast accurately because until you start the job, you have no clear idea of what you will meet. I think all three are relevant.
“What must be avoided is pressure on NDA to cut costs. Too often, ‘efficiency savings’ identified by government turn out to be achieved by using inadequate materials and techniques and eroding workers’ terms and conditions and that is not what is needed”.
Ends//..For more information contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
Note to Editors
The letter sent to Chancellor Rachel Reeves MP reads:
The Rt Hon Rachel Reeves, MP,
Chancellor of the Exchequer,
HM Treasury
Wednesday 23 Oct 2024
ceu.enquiries@hmtreasury.gov.uk
Dear Chancellor,
As the days wind down until your first Budget as Chancellor of the new Labour Government, we, as representatives of NGOs opposed to nuclear power, join trades unions in that industry in raising concerns that your Red Box may include proposals to make cuts to the budget of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Whilst we shall continue to lobby for the abandonment of plans to develop more nuclear power stations for the UK, and for the cessation of electricity generation by nuclear fission on existing sites at the soonest practicable date, we recognise that the legacy of Britain’s nuclear power industry is a stockpile of radioactive waste and a succession of contaminated former nuclear sites.
The NDA continues to play an indispensable role in the management of this radioactive waste stockpile and in the decommissioning of former nuclear sites. Given the deadly materials with which, and contaminated sites on which, NDA staff work, we recognise that these activities require sufficient public funding to continue efficiently but, most importantly, safely. Not only is this work vital for public safety in the present, but it also remain important for decades to come in order to safeguard future generations; consequently, government must give a commitment to long-term sustainable funding.
We are therefore especially concerned by the worsening safety position at Sellafield where most of the high-level waste is stockpiled, including that held from other nations. We agree with Mike Clancy, General Secretary of the Prospect Union, and Gary Smith, General Secretary of GMB Union, who stated in their letter to you that:
‘We understand that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is facing severe budgetary pressures, which would result in cuts to high hazard and safety-related activities across the nuclear estate including at Dounreay and Sellafield Ltd. We fear that jobs will be impacted at Sellafield in particular. The consequent reduction in the volume of work that can be undertaken will inevitably reduce plant maintenance, accelerating the degradation of assets and bringing cuts to the skilled workforce.’
The Guardian conducted a yearlong investigation into activities at Sellafield, which led to allegations being published that I.T. systems at the site had been compromised, safety protocols were inadequate (Sellafield has recently pleaded guilty to some offences), that much of the facility was ‘dangerously outdated and degraded’ and that there existed a toxic workplace culture which ‘risks compromising the safety of Europe’s most hazardous nuclear site.’
Concerns were also raised over staffing levels at Sellafield by councillor Sam Pollen (Egremont, Labour) during a meeting of Cumberland Council’s Nuclear Issues Committee on Jan 7, 2024.
Members were discussing the Sellafield Showcase Report which examined several major projects at the site. Cllr Pollen said there were challenges which Sellafield was facing and added: “They’ve not got enough people on site to do what they need to do.” The workforce is aging significantly with many skilled staff reportedly leaving over the Covid pandemic and the organisation is struggling to replace them in sufficient numbers.
While we vehemently disagree with the ongoing NDA policy of dispersal of low-level wastes to the environment (to landfill, ‘recycling’ of radioactive scrap metal, incineration and to sea) we agree with the Unions statement that: ‘As demonstrated in the phase two report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, any dilution of the safety culture must be a red flag.”
Any reduction in funding for the NDA’s work at Sellafield in containment of nuclear wastes would be both illogical and bizarre given the Labour Government’s mistaken commitment to new nuclear, with a further £5.5 billion of UK-taxpayer money just pledged to Suffolk’s monstrous White Elephant, Sizewell C. Once online, the wastes generated by the nuclear plants at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C would be from ‘high burn fuel’ (i.e. the uranium would be in the reactors for longer and burn hotter); this would lead to nuclear waste which is far more dangerous and harder and more costly and complex to manage, and which would represent 80% of all the radioactivity currently held at Sellafield.
Consequently, we are opposed to any reduction in the NDA’s budget, especially where this would impact on the effective and safe management of radioactive wastes at Sellafield.
We attach an image of Sellafield’s Outline Planning Zone in the case of an ‘exceptional emergency’, it extends for 50 Kms. It is frightening to think that an ‘exceptional’ accident could become far less ‘exceptional’ with financial cuts to safety at Sellafield.
We urge you to properly fund the effective and safe management of existing nuclear wastes at Sellafield and the decommissioning of nuclear sites, rather than facilitating new nuclear plants, and so create even more radioactive waste, using obscene amounts of public money.
Your response to this letter would be most welcome. Please direct any reply in the first instance to Richard Outram, NFLA Secretary by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
Marianne Bennett (also known as Birkby – wildlife artist), Radiation Free Lakeland.
Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, Chair, UK / Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities.
Endorsed by:
Professor Andy Blowers OBE, BANNG Bradwell against New Nuclear Group.
Councillor Sadie Clarke, resident of west Cumbria and Parish Councillor of Drigg and Carleton Parish Council.
Mike Crookes, Chairman, GOTEC (Guardians of the East Coast).
Philip Gilligan, Coordinator of South Lakeland and Lancaster District CND.
Alan Hatt, Director, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC).
Rita Holmes, Ayrshire Radiation Monitoring Group.
Allan Jeffery, Assistant Co Ordinator, Stop Hinkley.
Elfed Jones, Administrator, ICAN. WE CAN. CYMRU CAN.
Jennifer Kirtley, Chairperson, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC).
Councillor Jill Perry, Cumberland Council and for West Cumberland Green Party.
Linda Rogers, PAWB (People against Wylfa B).
Dr Jill Sutcliffe, Low Level Radiation and Health Conference.
References:
Beyond Nuclear https://beyondnuclear.org/plutonium-time-bomb-a-shocking-expose-on-sellafield/
Whitehaven News
https://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/24037573.egremont-councillors-discusses-staffing-crisis-sell afield/
Workers Raise Concerns https://www.futurenetzero.com/2024/09/13/workers-raise-concerns-over-funding-for-nuclear-power/
Hinkley Point C – costs rocketing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68073279
“According to Radioactive Waste Management Ltd, the radioactivity from existing waste (i.e. not including new reactors) is expected to be 4,770,000 Terabecquerels (TBq) in the year 2200. The radioactivity of the spent fuel alone (not including other types of waste) generated by a 16GW programme of new reactors is expected to be around 19,000,000TBq. Hinkley Point C would be a 3.2GW station, so the amount of radioactivity in the spent fuel from Hinkley Point C in the year 2200 would be 3,800,000TBq – or about 80% of the radioactivity in existing waste. (7)”
http://stophinkley.org/archive/WManDecom/HinklCWaste.pdf
Sellafield OPZ https://cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/533/561/44148144041.pdf
Heysham OPZ https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/media/918338/heysham-opz-map.pdf
