Dumping of ‘nuclear’ mud should have been debated
The controversy arising out of the dumping of mud from a nuclear power station off Cardiff took an unexpected turn this week. Chief reporter Martin Shipton considers the implications of the story
UNTIL about a year ago, the company building a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point on the Somerset coast must have thought the project was progressing nicely.
Four years after being granted a licence to dump 300,000 tonnes of mud from the site in a designated area of the Severn Estuary off Cardiff, they were ready to start doing just that.
Then concerns about the dumping plan arose seemingly from nowhere. A small number of anti-nuclear activists spread the word, organised petitions, and before long 100,000 signatures had been collected.
Nuclear disasters like Chernobyl have unsurprisingly created a fear of the industry in a population that usually doesn’t understand the science – and why should they be expected to?
However many times those with a vested interest – and even independent “experts” – seek to reassure people that nuclear power is safe, a lot remain unconvinced.
The long hot summer has certainly seen anger rising about the dumping. A fear that the mud may contain radioactive particles that could cause cancer has tapped into Welsh national pride to create – at the very least – a severe headache for the subsidiary of French energy giant EDF that is constructing Hinkley Point C.
This week months of skirmishing came to a head. A crowdfunding exercise raised enough money for Cian Ciaran of Super Furry Animals to seek an injunction on behalf of the protesters to halt the mud dumping, which has finally started.
While opponents of the dumping believed they had the high moral ground, their argument in the High Court was quite narrow: had EDF complied with EU regulations by commissioning an environmental impact assessment of the dumping?
EDF said in a document lodged with the court that no such assessment was required for dredging the mud. Mr Ciaran and his friends disagreed.
But the whole situation was complicated when EDF’s barrister told the court that an environmental assessment had, in fact, been undertaken when the original application to build Hinkley Point C was made. He was, however, unclear what the assessment consisted of, not having had the time to read the 2,000-page application.
As a result of this apparent inconsistency, the judge has adjourned the case for seven days. Meanwhile the dumping continues: if Mr Ciaran had applied for it to be halted, he would have been liable for massive damages if he eventually loses the case.
Independent South Wales Central AM Neil McEvoy has taken up the cause of the protesters with gusto. His Facebook videos raising health concerns about the dumping have infuriated those in favour of the operation, which includes EDF, the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales, the quango which granted the licence in 2014.
That hasn’t stopped him. On Sunday evening he went on board the Belgian dredging boat involved in the dumping. It was moored in Barry Docks. He interrupted the crew, who were having their evening meal. At first the conversation was courteous, as he spoke to them in French. But when he told them he wanted them to stop the dumping, they asked him to leave. He didn’t get to see the captain, but he’s been in touch with the Belgian seafarers’ union, trying to get its officials to tell the crew of the dredger to refuse to continue with the operation.
Mr McEvoy has also made another video, this time appealing to owners of boats around the coast of Wales to form a flotilla and blockade the dredger so it can’t dump the mud.
It’s a serious subject, but it’s getting to have the makings of a movie.
Meanwhile the protesters have enlisted the support of a mainstream nuclear physicist – Emeritus Professor Keith Barnham of Imperial College, London.
He has written a book which explores the history of the Hinkley Point site. The new C nuclear power station is the third to be built there. The previous power stations are referred to as Hinkley Point A and Hinkley Point B.
According to Prof Barnham, the A power station – constructed in the 1960s – was run as a plutonium factory in its early years. In the financial year 1968-69, over half the nuclear reactor core was removed with a new refuelling system designed to change only one-fifth of the core in a year. This was done, he states, so the spent fuel elements would reach Sellafield on the Cumbrian coast before the international Non-Proliferation Treaty started, which forbids civil plutonium transfer to a military stockpile.
Prof Barnham writes: “Discharging spent fuel twice as fast as the system was designed for may have led to cooling pond accidents that could damage the spent fuel cladding. This could result in uranium and plutonium entering the cooling water and ultimately the environment.”
It would be foolish to draw definitive conclusions. But why on earth hasn’t this all been debated in public long before now.