Mixed reactions to waste management problems at Sellafield
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/05/waste-management-problems-sellafield Version 0 of 1. GMB has been hugely critical of the way the Sellafield contract has been managed by Nuclear Management Partners (Report, 5 December). The people at the sharp end of this mismanagement are the 10,000 ordinary working men and women on the site. Our members employed there work in some of the most hazardous known environments, dealing with what is, in large part, a cold war legacy. Seemingly against the odds, NMP was recently awarded a contract extension. Did ministers ignore the recommendations of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority? Was it for ideological reasons, because the only viable alternative to a contract extension was to bring the work back in-house? We must not lose sight of the fact that there is a huge stockpile of plutonium on the site. As a society we will have hard choices. The only sensible thing to do is to use it for something socially useful – producing electricity.<br /><strong>Gary Smith</strong><br />GMB nNational secretary, <em>GMB commercial services section</em> • You outline the extensive costs as a consequence of failure to produce a comprehensive cradle-to-grave plan when the original nuclear plants and the Sellafield site were built. As the UK begins a new generation of reactors, spent fuel and radioactive waste management must remain a priority. The UK's stockpile of plutonium was planned to be reused as fuel in fast reactors, but we ended our fast-reactor research programme in the late 1990s and instead opted for indefinite storage of the stockpile. However, security and cost make this an unacceptable long-term option. Other technically mature options, such as reusing the plutonium as new mixed oxide (mox) fuel in reactors, must be explored. Planning for the long-term, the government must keep open the full range of options for using the stockpile and managing future waste by reconsidering its participation in international fast-reactor research programmes. <br /><strong>Professor Roger Cashmore </strong><br /><em>Chair, Royal Society report Fuel Cycle Stewardship in a Nuclear Renaissance</em> • Your article says that I "leaked" the KPMG report on Sellafield mismanagement to the Commons' public accounts committee. I did not leak the report, as I had legitimately obtained it via a freedom of information request from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority three days before the first hearing of the PAC on Sellafield mismanagement last month. When I learned of the hearing, on the morning it was due to take place, I decided that the parliamentary committee charged with overseeing the value-for-money of the expenditure of our taxes by public bodies should be aware of this report before it held its hearing with NDA and Department of Energy and Climate Change witnesses, so I emailed it to the chair, Margaret Hodge MP, and the clerk to the PAC. The distinction is a very important one.<br /><strong>Dr David Lowry</strong><br /><em>Stoneleigh, Surrey</em> • I'm pleased that, after parliament's inadequate scrutiny of the exorbitantly expensive Hinkley Point nuclear reactor project, we are going to see proper consideration of UK nuclear new build by the European commission (Report, 2 December). Our organisation has joined with parliamentarians and other groups to sign a letter to the EU opposing the deal. It notes that "in terms of competition within the EU, state aid for nuclear power in the UK is entirely at odds with the coming single market for electricity in the EU and with the principle that there should be free movement of goods and services throughout the region. It is bad for the development, throughout Europe, of effective alternatives – renewables and energy conservation – which are ready to go, cheaper than nuclear power, and very much quicker to build." . That is why Germany, Austria and other EU states oppose nuclear power and why the deal should be rejected by the European commission. Rather than cutting more than 10,000 jobs from the energy efficiency sector, we should be investing further in sustainable energy. <br /><strong>Councillor Mark Hackett</strong><br /><em>Chair, </em><em>Nuclear Free Local Authorities</em><em> </em> Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |