Last updated at 11:41, Thursday, 27 September 2012

SIR – The effects on West Cumbria’s economy of a ‘No’ vote at this stage of the MRWS process will be devastating – not that it’ll bother the likes of Marianne Birkby (South Lakes) or Colin Wales (Sedburgh).

Saying no at this stage means no new build, which would mean no jobs, no community benefits and no prospects of a change in our economic fortunes.

The problem is that the vocal minority is banging a drum because it is opposed to nuclear power in all its forms. They lack a mature view and are stuck on an agenda of “nuclear is evil in all its forms”.

A Mori poll that you’ve reported in your paper shows that West Cumbrians are in favour of at least exploring the opportunity. That’s because people in West Cumbria know that Sellafield is safe. It had the potential to be dangerous, but the skills and experience of those who operate the site mean that the hazard is appropriately managed.

The workforce in West Cumbria were pioneers of nuclear power and I, for one, am proud to have had family who’ve worked at the site over a number of years.

The only thing those pioneers didn’t quite get right is planning on what to do with the waste that they created – hence the time and money being spent on decommissioning in 2012.

This generation is, quite literally, cleaning up after the one before and we have a moral obligation not to leave our grandchildren the same problem that we are facing.

Like it or not, nuclear waste exists, and it needs to be managed appropriately. That doesn’t mean leave it at Sellafield in short-term storage forever and a day. As safe and secure as that is, it doesn’t tackle the problem.

The science behind a repository is well-founded – and the argument that Cumbrian geology isn’t suitable doesn’t stand up, because the examination is yet to take place.

A yes vote on October 11 will serve only to take us on the next step of the journey – the investigations can then take place and, if the geology isn’t right then nobody, not a staunch supporter of nuclear or the most committed Sellafield worker, will want to press on with the process. But until we’ve done the research how can we say no?

We owe it to our pioneers of the past, and to our children and, and our children’s children, to at least have a look and see if it would work.

Ian LITTLETON
Central Avenue, Egremont

SIR – I find that I cannot support the move to Stage 4 for the following reasons.

1. The vast amount of money that has already been spent on drilling which according to geologists has proved that West Cumbria is not a suitable place to have an underground repository. We have had prevarication from every direction, but we must listen to and respect the opinions of these geologists.

2. As a supporter of the nuclear industry, I think it is time to stop the procrastination and allow the search to continue in other parts of the country for a more geologically acceptable site. It is important that this is done quickly and to start immediately so as to give support to nuclear energy which incidentally, we cannot uninvent. This is why the decision to withdraw from further participation is so important.

3. The people in my ward, Ennerdale, have grave reservations about continuing to Stage 4. I have been inundated with letters, all of which are totally opposed to the idea of an underground repository in this area. This does not mean they are opposed to the nuclear industry.

4. Copeland Borough Council is seen publicly as being far too close to and too reliant on the nuclear industry to make a rational decision on this all-important stage in the proceedings. I therefore feel we should withdraw and allow the powers that be to I find a suitable site in some other part of the country.

Finally, I would say to this council that finding an underground facility is absolutely necessary and as soon as possible but please, not in West Cumbria.

Robert SALKELD
Ennerdale Ward Borough Councillor, Lamplugh

SIR – Your pages have been filled recently with anti-nuclear ramblings from readers who don’t seem to have grasped what the forthcoming MRWS vote is all about.

Our elected representatives (well, those of us who live in Cumbria’s elected representatives at least) are voting “yes” or “no” to staying in the process. Perhaps a better way to describe the vote is “no” or “not no” – because that’s what it equates to.

I have read page after page and letter after letter from so-called experts debating the geology of the area, many of whom I’m sure are no more qualified than I am to offer an opinion, either for or against.

Of course, a yes vote at this stage wouldn’t commit us to anything – it would simply allow properly qualified geologists the opportunity to carry out an investigation and then report their findings. The anti-nuke bile and propaganda that has filled these pages over recent weeks begs the question – if those who are so convinced the area isn’t suitable are so confident then why wouldn’t they want to allow that process to prove them right? What gives them the right to second guess the science?

I’m not saying I’m in favour of building the repository. However, given the fact that we have the highest concentration of nuclear skills in Europe, possibly the world, in our corner of Cumbria, and given the fact that the vast majority of the waste that would be stored in a repository is already stored – and will continue to be stored – at Sellafield, why not at least look into the proposal?

If the powers that be kow-tow to the vocal minority who have flooded these pages in recent weeks it will send a clear message to the Government that the area isn’t interested in partnering with it to do the right thing. New-build (which makes little economical sense in West Cumbria) will be off the agenda locally, but the need to keep the lights on will mean it still happens elsewhere, with the waste sent to, surprise, surprise, Sellafield.

If we are going to get the waste then we might as well get the benefit – so it is right that we at least allow a proper investigation to be done to see if the geology is suitable.

Kim CONNOR
Dent Road, Thornhill, Egremont

SIR – At last common sense seems to be permeating the nuclear waste storage saga, with suggestions of a Plan B having surfaced to provide medium- to long-term storage at Sellafield using proven existing technology. I raised this point in an earlier letter (January 2, 2011) from experience on the Vitrification Plant product store design which is expected to be in operation for a minimum of 100 years without constant supervision.

Sellafield has long experience in dealing with highly-active waste and has facilities (Thorp) to receive and break down spent fuel elements from any reactor, currently for reprocessing. It should be possible to modify this to provide packaging for storage of component parts on site.

Ample space exists at Sellafield for the construction of further above ground storage of highly active material to meet any new build programme. There are no perceived advantages in partial under-ground construction, this would simply add to the cost and risk of ground water penetration.

It is high time this under-ground repository project was kicked into touch – no-one wants it, its too problematical and would be horrendously expensive, both in capital cost and operating cost. We have been led by the nose far too long by the under-ground storage vested interest – the emperor has no clothes on methinks?

G MYERS (ex BNFL)
Manor Gardens, Whitehaven

SIR – Sir David King, along with Jamie Reed MP, has claimed that Copeland, Allerdale and Cumbria councils need to say yes to proceeding to the next stage on investigations for a nuclear dump, as such a facility is essential to new nuclear reactors.

Yet I have been told, in no uncertain terms, by a senior official at the NDA – now one of the managers overseeing the nuclear waste disposal programme – that there is no link between the proposed repository and the fortunes of new build and that it is an “absolute lie” to say otherwise (and yes, I can provide the time, date, place and name for this encounter).

So, two very different takes on a nuclear waste repository and how relevant it is to new-build. A few points to consider.

According to CoRWM, the radioactive wastes of the proposed 10 new reactors would contain three-fold the amount of radioactivity of the wastes and nuclear materials created over the past 60 years of nuclear activity. This is just one of many reasons why the repository proposal must be considered, by those in favour of progressing it, on a cautious step-by-step basis.

Unfortunately, King’s and Reed’s comments have now possibly made a very strong link between not only saying yes to the next stage, but also to saying yes to the repository full stop and to accepting new-build wastes too, to facilitate new reactors.

Yet the final decision on actually hosting a repository, even for legacy wastes, is meant to be many years hence. Further, any host community and council are meant to have a say over the amount of wastes which would go into any repository. Have these decision- making processes been undermined by the assumptions, and perhaps expectations, created by what Sir David King and Jamie Reed have said?

Jean McSORLEY
Portland Crescent, Barrow-in-Furness

SIR – I was glad to see the interesting views so well featured regarding the nuclear waste disposal proposals in Copeland.

I live in the Ennerdale valley in an historic property which, according to the draft plans of the exploratory drilling, lies in the way of the proposed access road. As you can imagine I am very upset about the prospect of the plans suggesting that either my house will be removed to make way or at least partially destroyed together with my tranquillity and way of life in order to facilitate this project.

Twelve years ago we came to the Ennerdale valley to rescue Routen Farm and pursue a rural life-style with a smallholding, camping barn (to service the coast-to-coast walking trade) and rural workshop, in which I process local wool into rugs. In order to get the planning permission for these minor activities we had to restrict the changes to the character of the valley and limit the conversion of our barn to a very strict set of criteria argued over endlessly with the LDNP. Now you are telling us that, with enough money, anybody else can bulldoze a scar into the landscape of this beautiful valley, invite in huge industrial equipment, cars, and 500 people a day and we are not even allowed to put a sensible number of windows in our property. What is the point of ringfencing areas of outstanding natural beauty and sustaining organisations like the Lake District National Park Authority if any Joe with enough money can ride roughshod over our protected and cherished landscape?

As a council I believe Copeland is nearsighted in thinking in this one-track “Nuclear is the only way” policy. Other counties manage regeneration and provision of jobs using many different industries. Isn’t it time Copeland started to look to other methods of regeneration, like encouraging cottage industries, making Whitehaven’s retail and tourism mix more attractive, and respecting the beautiful surroundings we have which are unique to Britain and only found in Cumbria? There are less attractive places in Britain which are I am sure better suited to the dumping of nuclear waste. We do not want you to bring this industrial rape through our valley.

Susan DENHAM-SMITH
Ennerdale

SIR – This is a copy of the letter I sent to the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership:

Dear Sir,

Your latest publication, “Nuclear Waste Disposal in West Cumbria”, misses one important consideration – the potential environmental impacts of test drilling to establish the suitability of the geology.

You have one expert opinion which clearly rules out West Cumbrian geology as being unsuitable as a potential underground disposal site for nuclear waste. The fact that you have another, less authoritative study which cast doubt on this is apparently sufficient to persuade you to test drill to check the results.

The impact of that on parts of the West Cumbrian Lake District National Park would be profound. For example your proposal to drive a new road through much of the length of Ennerdale and Eskdale valleys to carry the lorries and other traffic needed to proceed with test drilling would be highly damaging to the environment, to the tourist industry and to some of the most beautiful landscapes in the UK. In establishing the suitability of this geology for your purposes you would irreparably damage the environment you claim to be seeking to protect.

If these matters of environmental damage were not sufficient to persuade you to accept the most authoritative evidence of unsuitability available, then the other key consideration for you is People Power.

If you believe that you will easily carry out these plans without substantial reaction from a wide, national and international constituency, not confined to the West Cumbrian area, then you have seriously underestimated the position. Mass recourse to politics, to the courts, and to direct action is an inevitable consequence of your approach and should be factored into your decision making.

The proposal to sell off Forestry Commission land by the Government was met with such a response and had the impact of reversing the Government’s decision. How much more so with your proposal to scar this protected landscape?

Peter MAHER
Lamplugh

Civic Hall

SIR – You recently reported that Copeland Council was concerned about the under-use of the Civic Hall. What a wonderful opportunity this situation presents to bring all the archives and heritage of Whitehaven under one roof, instead of having them in storage at Haig industrial park and seldom displayed.

The Civic Hall as a museum would benefit and revitalise the centre of Whitehaven where local people and visitors could experience the rich history and heritage of this part of Cumbria.

Across the road the redundant Methodist Church on the corner of Lowther Street/Scotch Street could be renovated to provide two floors in which to exhibit artifacts (eliminating the cost of storage). This would also remove the dilapidated face of Whitehaven seen when one enters the town. I would also remove The Beacon from its harbourside location where, for many inhabitants of Copeland, it has never fitted in with the architecture of the area.

Being a Marra, the word ‘can’t’ is not part of my vocabulary. Everything is possible; it is people who ‘won’t’.

Here the council has an opportunity to do something positive that would be acceptable to most of their constituents.

John RULE
Carlton Drive, Whitehaven

People Power

SIR – Hurrah for Frizington and Copeland!

Has the fight back begun? Have local councillors started to represent and support the views of the community?

All this came to mind when reading the local “rag”, The Whitehaven News, an excellent organ of the free press and the voice of local Cumbrian people that highlighted;

The rejection by local people of the withdrawal of refuse collection outside properties.

The rejection by local people of the current proposals for dumping nuclear waste material in North West Cumbria, despite the facts proved by scientists that the geology of the area is totally unsuitable.

The rejection by local people of the 115 metre high turbines monstrosity and “sweeteners” by national contractors causing major scars to our beautiful landscape.

All this local reaction, despite the “spin” and mendacious information by council leaders, senior council management and a member of parliament with their own agendas contrary to the sincere interests of local people.

John WILLIAMS
Frizington

Village history

SIR – In July 2009 you carried an article by Margaret Crosby about PoWs in West Cumbria during the Second World War.

In those days we lived at Holmrook and I remember the Italian PoWs driving through the village. They always used to shout and wave at me. As a dark-haired child with plaits I no doubt reminded them of home.

These PoWs drained the fields we called ‘the meadows’ at Holmrook. Judging by the state of the fields now, all their hard work has silted up. Where these men had their camp I have no idea.

It is only a small memory but one that could be added to all the others.

Mrs Joy HUTCHINGS
Horsham, West Sussex

First published at 11:04, Thursday, 27 September 2012
Published by http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk