letters

Nuclear guardian being 'muzzled'

SIZEWELL: Campaigners told Japanese disaster not for

discussion at AGM

By Craig Robinson

ANTI-NUCLEAR campaigners have accused an industry group of being "muzzled" after they were told they would not be allowed to discuss the situation in disaster-struck Japan at its next meeting.

Richard Smith, chairman of the Sizewell A and B Stakeholder Group (SSG), has sent out a letter asking that questions and detailed remarks about the stricken Fukushima Power Plant be avoided at its AGM in June.

He said instead there would be a dedicated meeting following the publication of the Government report into the disaster, which is due out in September.

But campaigners from Shut Down Sizewell have criticised the move, claiming it made a "mockery" of the system and prevented the public from expressing their fears.

Peter Lanyon, a member of the group, said: "The SSG exists as an open forum for community concerns by providing independent information about nuclear matters, and to act as a facilitator for the two-way flow of that information.

"Forbidding any discussion of Fukushima until September makes a mockery of the whole thing.

"The media may discuss Fukushima until the cows come home, and Tom, Dick and Harriett can benefit as much as they like from independent information about the Japanese disaster. Yet the plan is that the SSG, using public money so it may facilitate information flow about the safety of the nuclear industry, is to be absolutely muzzled."

The Fukushima Power Plant has been in disarray ever since an earthquake and tsunami struck Japan on March 11.Radiation started leaking from reactors and people were urged to leave the surrounding area, sparking worldwide concern. The letter from Mr Smith reads: "Understandably, many of you who attend our meetings will be concerned about the recent serious nuclear incident at the Japanese Fukushima Power Plant. The SSG will pay close attention to how the situation there develops and you are assured of my fullest commitment, as chairman, in challenging local operators on the adequacy of their own arrangements for dealing with significant events here, should they occur.

"To this end I am keen the SSG hosts a special public meeting dedicated to reviewing the lessons of Fukushima so that members and non-members alike may seek answers to their questions and concerns from local nuclear site licensees and from government

"The government-commissioned review being complied by Mike Weightman, chief inspector at the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), is due to be finalised in September. I believe the SSG must hold a special public meeting as soon as possible thereafter. "In the meantime the group's AGM in June will continue to be planned but I wish to avoid direct questions or detailed remarks about the situation in Japan until the public meeting. I will ensure that members are informed of the provisional conclusions of the Weightman report which is due out sometime in late May.

"The SSG is made up of parish, town, district and county councillors along with local residents, community representatives and co-opted members. Its role is to inform the public of activities on the Sizewell A and B sites and to act as an open forum for community concerns. Commenting yesterday, Mr Smith assured that the situation in Japan would not be ignored and fully discussed when all the facts were available.

"The AGM in June is an evening meeting," he said. "We normally have trouble finishing within three hours so I wanted to prevent it from going on until very late.

"Of course I realise the seriousness of the situation in Japan but none of us knows the whole picture. The complete report will be out in September and I hope to be able to get someone down from the ONR to brief us so we can have a fully informed meeting on the subject."

craig.robinson *eadt.co.uk

SHUT DOWN SIZEWELL CAMPAIGN

Letter ref the continued pro-nuclear bias of the local Stakeholder Group

To; Tony Fountain,

C.E.O. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority,
Herdus House,

Westlakes Science Park,

Moor Row,

Cumbria. CA24 3HU

Dear Tony Fountain,

15th March2011

                        Firstly, may I refer you to the attached copy of the 'East Anglian Daily Times' of 7^th
                        March, 2011, which describes (in part) our grave concerns about the SSG, as voiced by
                         me on behalf of our Campaign at the SSG quarterly meeting on 3^r^d March 2011: 'SSG not
                        fit for purpose?'

To inform the public of activities on the Sizewell sites and of the site operators .
. To act as a conduit for two-way information provision and flow.

To act as a 'clearing-house' for community concerns by providing independent
interpretation of information.

1. Conducted its sub-group deliberations in secret; no chance for the public to have any
say or influence.

2. Prevented independent nuclear consulting engineer, John Large of Large & Associates
from confronting the NIl at a public meeting in 2009 about the truth of the 2007 pipe
failure at Sizewell A when 40,000 gallons of radioactive water were illegally discharged

3. Voted not to follow up the German KIKK report on the enhanced incidence of infant
cancer around German nuclear plants, as far as Sizewell is concerned.

4. Voted not to follow up public concerns about the inadequacy of the local emergency
plans to deal with a disaster at the Sizewell plants.

5. Voted to allow Sizewell nuclear plant workers and pensioners on the SSG to vote, and
hence to vote down the motions above, despite an obvious pecuniary conflict of
interest.

6. Tamely accepted the NII's decision to allow Sizewell B to restart after a recent 6
months shutdown, even though a cursory inspection of the NII's investigative report
(Forced Outage No.43, elicited by John Large through the Freedom of Information Act)
showed an alarming temporary lash-up, amounting to a reduction in the safety of the
plant.

Mr. Fountain, we, as the authentic public voice on the safety (and lack of it) of the
Sizewell nuclear plants, look to you as C.E.O. of the N DA (parent and funder of the SSG)
to institute a root and branch reform of the Sizewell Stakeholder Group: the SSG as
presently constituted is not fit for purpose and contravenes its own role and purpose.

A COMMUNITY liaison group set up to improve the flow of information about operations at the Sizewell power station site is "not fit for purpose",

according to the chairman of a local anti-nuclear group. Charles Barnett, chairman of the Shut Down Sizewell Campaign, claims the

Sizewell Stakeholder Group, which includes representatives of local councils and organisations but excludes anti nuclear and environment groups,

It had been left to a consultant engineer working on behalf of the anti- nuclear group to reveal the true nature of incidents at the site during the past few

years, Mr Barnett claimed at the quarterly meeting of the Sizewell Stakeholder Group.

"As presently constituted and led the SSG is not fit for purpose," he suggested. Members had "blandly accepted" the industry's version of an incident

involving a pipe leak at the Sizewell A plant in 2007 and it had been consulting engineer John Large who had forced the publication of an official
document which had exposed the "lamentable failures" at the power station, he alleged ..

Mr Large had also been responsible for the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate releasing the report on its investigation into an incident last
year which caused the Sizewell B plant to be shut down for six months, Mr Barnett said. He claimed there was a conflict of interest on the SSG which, he said,
had a "preponderance" of people who either worked or had worked at the station among its members.

"Anyone who has a financial interest in the industry should not be allowed to vote," claimed Mr Barnett, who told the meeting that the Shut Down
Sizewell Campaign had written to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the Sizewell A site owner, asking for a "root and branch" examination of

the workings of the SSG_"The SSG is a muzzling outfit. We do not think you are fit for purpose," he added, Mr
Barnett's remarks coincided with the first meeting at which. members of the
SSG were invited to declare interests. Three of the members present declared they were in receipt of pensions from the electricity supply industry and two members

declared links with anti-nuclear groups. The SSG has faced numerous criticisms over the past five years about the way it works and an alleged non-curious, pro-nuclear majority.

Richard Smith, SSG chairman, did not directly respond to the thrust of Mr Barnett's comments but said they would be noted. . Later in the meeting Mr Smith
revealed that a questionnaire about the workings of the SSG had been sent to 20 local groups. Fifteen had replied and had been "reasonably favourable"
about the SSG's performance.

Sir, - Charles Barnett makes clear his opinion about nuclear safety ("Consultant critical of N-plant fault 'secrecy' " - EADT. October 1). But it is important that EADT readers have the facts as well as a range of opinions.

HSE's Nuclear Directorate conducted a rigorous and thorough assessment of the
licensee's safety case and has inspected its work to bring the reactor back to power, in line with our usual safety assessment principles.

We agreed to the restart request only after we were satisfied that the licensee had undertaken all necessary measures to ensure the safety of the workforce and general public.

The HSE Nuclear Directorate aims to be open and transparent about its work, which is why we have published a report on our decision on our website; (www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear)

Sir - The nuclear safety regulator asserts (letters 5 October – Colin Patchett, HSE Nuclear Directorate) that we at the Shut Down Sizewell Campaign peddle unsubstantiated opinion whereas the regulator acts only on facts.

Let the facts speak for themselves: we were first to expose the regulator’s failure to prosecute Sizewell A over the radioactive release and near miss fuel fire back in 2007; we exposed Sizewell B’s recurrent neglect to properly test nuclear safety critical valves over the last fifteen years; and we highlighted and took to task both the Sizewell B operator and the regulator for their failings over the recent forced shut down due to faulty nuclear circuit components.

We have substantiated our opinion with hard won facts, extracted from an often taciturn regulator via the Freedom of Information Act, and we have our facts checked by the independent nuclear Consulting Engineers Large & Associates. Unlike, that is, the nuclear safety regulator who, for this most recent Sizewell B forced shut down, is only prepared to make public a somewhat cagily worded press release drawn from its own investigative report that remains a secret document.

Let the local community judge for themselves: either, take the glib and largely unsubstantiated assurances of the nuclear safety regulator or face the facts that we rely upon for our opinion.

The complete and open files on the recent incidents at Sizewell A and B are accessible at http://www.largeassociates.com/cz3179 and /cz3188

The Editor,
EADT,

30, Lower Brook Street,
Ipswich, IP4 1 AN

7^th August 2010

Sir,

You report (EADT 5th Aug) "Nuclear cash windfall plan for communities" (around
Sizewell) as compensation for the possible building of Sizewell C & D nuclear reactors.
This is the brain(?)child of the so called Sizewell Parishes Liason Group (SPLG) which
claims it is neither pro nor anti-nuclear, but merely looking to the nuclear industry (EDF
principally) for compensation for disturbance during the 7 year build programme and also
for storing the ensuing highly active nuclear waste for 60 years on site.

But, by soliciting money (some £10million plus), the group is, in effect, acquiescing in new
nuclear plants: we say thereby supporting Sizewell C & D in exchange for what would be a
bribe. This is intolerable in a democracy.

The SPLG obviously needs to be aware of what further nuclear expansion means:

1. Firstly, a highly dangerous nuclear dump on our doorstep for at least 160 years (not 60
as claimed by the SPLG)

2. A dump and two further nuclear plants liable to accident or terrorist attack with
horrendous results: the whole of East Anglia and beyond a radioactive desert: cf
Chernobyl.

3. The possibility of enhanced child and foetus cancers in the vicinity of the plants as
demonstrated by the German Government's recent KiKK report into the incidence of
cancers around German nuclear stations.

4. The need to guard the highly active nuclear wastes from entering the biosphere for at
least 250,000 years i.e. unto the ten thousandth generation of our descendants.

5. In the absence of any U.K. Geological Disposal Facility (the U.K. does not even have a
site for one), the Sizewell nuclear dump could well be there for centuries, long after the
plants have closed and the owners long gone, leaving us, the taxpayers, to pick up the burden. .

All these risks SPLG and for what, a mess of pottage .....

SPLG, get real, and join with us in our and others efforts to close down Sizewell and
instead go for the benign, non-polluting, safe sources of energy: wind, wave, tidal, solar,
biomass, coupled with energy conservation and energy efficiency. No need for nuclear.

Charles Barnett,
Chairman,

Shut Down Sizewell Campaign,
Tudor House, Dunwich

aims

newsletter one - newsletter two - newsletter three

environment - nuclear industry - french nuclear

membership - climate change & the effects of air travel

world comment - alternatives - sizewell a b & c

old newsletters