The UK government’s plans for management of nuclear waste have come to a standstill with Cumbria Council’s decision earlier this year to vote against Government plans to undertake preliminary work on an underground storage dump close to the Lake District.
Besides creating a stalemate in the country’s wider nuclear strategy, the decision illustrates the tensions that arise when balancing local versus national and present, and future interests.
The decision has been cheered by environment activists. Many feel that it marks a shift in decision-making with people locally and directly affected by decisions shaping and determining the outcomes. As Dr Ruth Balogh, nuclear issues campaigner for West Cumbria and North Lakes Friends of the Earth, put it in an interview for BBC, “Our representatives have truly represented the communities of west Cumbria and voted against this option.” She adds: “[t]he problems of nuclear waste and where to put it is a UK problem and should not be pushed onto the people of Cumbria.”
But not everyone is rejoicing. The council itself is split, on whether the decision is in the best interest of the community. With allegations of intimidation and the decision being politically motivated, a few councilors chose to call in the decision. As councilor David Southward states in his interview with the Westmorland Gazette, “I know of no coherent reason why Cabinet took the decision it did.” Tim Knowles, who held the environment portfolio in Cumbria’s cabinet quit as a ‘matter of principle’.
The decision has major implications for UK government’s wider nuclear strategy. Part of the government’ agreement with the public over new generation of atomic power stations involves finding permanent safe disposal of waste created by old ones. In 2011, nuclear supplied 18% of electricity demand in the UK. Many feel that nuclear power is an essential part of the energy mix. As Tim Yeo, Chairman of the House of Commons-appointed Energy and Climate Change Committee indicated recently, the government’s approach has so far been short-termist.
With such huge implications it is not surprising that some like Garry Graham, Deputy General Secretary of the Prospect trade union, think that the decision casts a shadow over any nuclear renaissance in the UK and calls for government intervention. Others like Prof Stuart Haszeldine, a geologist at the University of Edinburgh, feel that government policy on nuclear waste management is short sighted and local councils are driven into volunteering for the wrong reasons. As he puts it, “A lot of information is being suppressed in the process to entice councils into accepting technically flawed sites.”
Regardless of the question of ‘who’ decides, the decision, its implications and the surrounding controversies have necessitated an evaluation of ‘how’ decisions are taken— both at the local and at the national levels.
The local context
To understand the larger problems of nuclear waste disposal, one has to dig deep.
The inconvenient challenges of nuclear waste disposal have dogged scientists for many years, and proposals from the scientific and policy communities have, variously, ranged from blasting nuclear waste into space, to burying it at sea or shipping it abroad, or dumping it in uninhabitable places on Earth itself. An evaluation of environmental, political and social implications of nuclear disposal published by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) in 2006, place deep disposal within the bedrock as the least detrimental option. The UK government’s decision to pursue the deep disposal is matched by the decisions of another 25 countries opted for the same route.
Cumbria council volunteered to consider hosting this repository, and the nuclear industry has a long history in the region. Much of UK’s nuclear waste stems from the nuclear industry’s bases in West Cumbria. The Western district comprising Cumbria, Allerdale and Copeland councils are home to the largest nuclear complex in Europe—the so-called ‘energy coast’.
Nuclear legacy aside, the Cumbria council voted against the plan, basing its decision on evidence from independent geologists that the fractured strata of the county made it impossible to encrust it with such dangerous material— creating, as it does, hazards lasting for millennia. As Council leader Eddie Martin, explaining the Council’s decision in an interview with BBC said, “Cabinet believes there is sufficient doubt around the suitability of West Cumbria’s geology to put an end now to the uncertainty and worry this is causing for our communities. Cumbria is not the best place geologically in the UK and the government’s efforts need to be focused on disposing of the waste underground in the safest place, not the easiest.”
It is easy to see the reasons for the council’s verdict, particularly given that nuclear waste is dangerously radioactive and long-lived, posing a threat to life itself, not to mention tourism, the biggest revenue generator for Cumbria. Cumbria is home to the Lake District, a national park of immense beauty and home to legendary fells such as Great Gable and Pillar. Fourteen million people visit Cumbria every year bringing with them £2bn for the local economy.
Sitting on nuclear waste would not help tourism. Bill Jefferson, Chair, the Lake District National Park Authority wrote warning against disastrous effects on both the landscape and the tourism economy: “Tourism brings in far more than Sellafield [nuclear power complex] ever would, and let’s face it, there are going to be more than enough jobs in dealing with the clear-up and improvement of above-ground storage which is happening there. We have 15 million people coming to the park every year, and the prospect of having the world’s largest nuclear waste dump could make that considerably fewer.”
The Big Picture
The government’s plans and the council’s veto have raised many important questions about consultation, participation and decision-making processes. Why did the UK government ask for volunteer host communities before identifying areas that might offer suitable geological sites? Did the Council fully consider long term economic, geographic, social and political implications of storing nuclear waste in the region?
Nuclear waste concerns and affects people across Cumbria as well as beyond the region, with huge implications on UK’s overall development strategy. What are the implications for tackling climate change? Nuclear reactors plant currently generates 22% of UK’s electricity needs. With the stalling of waste disposal plans, the UK will probably be unable to replace its nuclear plants. Earlier this month Centrica abandoned its plans to build new nuclear plants in UK, citing delays in negotiations and increasing costs.
Centrica’s decision followed a report published by the Commons Public Accounts Committee which showed that the ‘enormous’ legacy of nuclear waste at Sellafield in Cumbria had been allowed to build up. The Committee’s report highlighted that the costs of decommissioning the site had reached £67.5bn, with no indication of when the expense would stop rising. An enormous amount of public money to the tune of £1.6 billion is spent each year on maintaining nuclear waste in Sellafield. The Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, said in her report “Taxpayers are not getting a good deal from the Authority’s arrangement with Nuclear Management Partners. Last year the consortium was rewarded with £54 million in fees, despite only two out of 14 major projects being on track.”
If the closing down of nuclear reactors and its impact on climate change targets in Japan and Germany are indicators, it is important that the government steps up to challenge the problem of replacing the UK’s ageing reactors and dirty coal-fired power stations with low-carbon energy. Japan’s decision to close down nuclear reactors following the Fukushima disaster have led the government to abandon a promise to cut down greenhouse emissions to 25% by 2020. A report by Barclays Capital calculates that Germany will emit an extra 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide between now and 2020 as result of closing down nuclear reactors near Bavaria.
Climate change targets are dependent on replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. Add the replacement of nuclear power to that and the picture becomes far more complex. As George Monbiot states: “Flawed and stalled as the nuclear clean-up plans may be, at least they exist”. Dealing with legacy waste is unavoidable, but adding to this apparently unsolvable problem is the government’s approach to decision-making on controversial long term issues that affect many successive generations.
So what is in store for nuclear waste in the future? With five years of work and 3.2 million pounds already having been spent on finding the right site and more than two thirds of its budget dedicated to managing nuclear waste, the Department for Energy and Climate Change, is on the lookout for other volunteer communities. But should the government not be focusing on technically qualified sites rather than asking communities to volunteer to take on the risk without having complete knowledge of the issues involved?
How decisions are taken has a deep impact on how democracy functions. Informed processes, public deliberation, engagement with all affected communities and citizens and evidence must be the foundation for public decision making. Cumbria council’s vote reflects the power that lies within any community to shape and determine their destiny. It is for the government to further empower its citizens to come together to address sustainability challenges. If public decisions are to be fair, they must stem from informed engagement with citizens, and build upon the knowledge and wisdom of the people.
The government has to choose between opting for an evidence based policy or an easier choice of exploiting communities that are already steeped in nuclear legacy. The government’s failure in Cumbria could prove to be a positive opportunity for the evolution of forms of democracy that are better able to support sustainable development.
The saga of the government’s plans for dealing with nuclear waste has raised some thorny questions about the need to deepen democracy in strategic decision-making, not to mention the need to balance needs of the future with the present. It also presents an opportunity; pointing to avenues through which to evolve the democratic decision-making process to be more inclusive.
The ongoing story highlights the need to invest in institutions, skills and networks needed to enable informed, inclusive and deliberative participation – so that decisions towards a sustainable future can be the result.
Images:
Pebbles: Courtesy Flickr user aeu04117 Creative Commons Attribution License http://www.flickr.com/photos/aeu04117/5199030961/
Nuclear Reactor: Courtesy Flickr user Peretzp Creative Commons Attribution License http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifl/7238289476/
Lake District: Courtesy Flickr user Berduchwal Creative Commons Attribution License http://www.flickr.com/photos/62136890@N02/5680539617/
