Ken Smith moved to the Lincolnshire coast to spend his retirement writing crime novels around beaches, arcades, holiday parks and nature reserves.
Recently, however, his retreat has been disrupted. The Mablethorpe resident unexpectedly found himself on the front line of a fight affecting countries around the world over what to do with nuclear waste.
Mablethorpe’s fate will determine how Britain resolves a problem that has persisted for seventy years. As governments seek better solutions to radioactive waste, communities are torn between the lure of economic opportunity and the reality of living near disposal sites.
Saddlethorpe, a few miles off the road, is one of three areas in England being considered for a 36 square kilometer underground site to deal with the decay of nuclear waste, some of which lasts for hundreds of thousands of years. .
A disused gas terminal in a village could be the entrance to a North Sea subsea facility. But Smith, 75, and members of his local campaign group East Coast Keepers were not happy with the proposal.
“It will destroy the town,” he said, arguing that the economic benefits of the project have been overstated and that, in fact, it could damage local tourism. “In my opinion, this is a disaster waiting to happen.”
Britain has been producing nuclear waste since the 1940s, and Queen Elizabeth II opened the world’s first full-scale commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall, in Seascale, Cumbria, in 1956.
Waste generated by the plant and subsequent nuclear power facilities is currently stored above ground at 20 locations. These include Sellafield next to Calder Hall, which has been dumped into pools or rotting containers over the years.
However, storing such material above ground is not suitable in the long term, as the site needs to be monitored and protected, and nuclear waste may remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.
The Nuclear Waste Service, the government agency responsible for selecting the site, said a “geological disposal facility” could “relieve the burden on future generations of having to safely and securely preserve waste in above-ground storage facilities for thousands of years.” ”.
For a more permanent solution, countries including the UK plan to bury it 1km underground and wrap, seal and protect it with layers of rock. But finding a site isn’t easy due to public safety concerns.
Concerned about forcing the scheme on people, ministers set up a search process whereby communities could register their interest in hosting a site. Any final decision would face a “meaningful test of public support,” although it’s unclear how that would be defined.
The search is limited to England and Wales due to devolved nuclear waste policy. The initial hunt failed in 2013 after Cumbria County Council withdrew, ending what then-council leader Eddie Martin said had caused “uncertainty and concern”.
This setback puts the UK behind other countries. Finland’s Olkiluoto plant, located 455m deep in crystalline bedrock on the west coast, is expected to come online this decade. Paris and Sweden are also ahead.
The resurgence of nuclear power has made the issue more urgent as countries try to reduce their reliance on natural gas. However, an estimated 90% of the waste buried anywhere in the UK has already been generated.
The search is focused on three areas: South Copeland and Mid Copeland in Cumbria; and Sedlethorpe. A fourth region, Allerdale, also in Cumbria, was withdrawn this week after an initial assessment showed the geology was unsuitable.
“We cannot be a generation that does nothing,” said David Moore, a member of Cumberland County Council, the unifying body that takes over the western region of Cumbria County Council. He supports the effort to find a location.
“For 30 years, this issue has been on the back burner. We have to be the generation committed to making changes and adopting safer ways to store nuclear waste.”
Shared interests are not the only motivating factor. The NWS says a site will create 175 years of jobs during construction and infill, with 4,000 jobs created in the first five years. Communities that put themselves forward for consideration will also receive an additional £1 million a year from the outset.
For some people around Siddlethorpe, one of the country’s poorer income areas, these arguments are attractive. “Skilled jobs are going to be a good thing,” said William Kirkham, 35, who grew up in the area. “That’s the problem here – everything is low-skilled, low-wage.”
“It might help because I think they have to improve the infrastructure in the area,” said Esther Nye, 54, who runs the Bucket and Spade cafe and store.
Others, like Smith, are less convinced the local economy will benefit, or that they can’t overcome safety concerns.
“We’re labeled Nimby, which is really annoying,” said fellow GOTEC member Sara Bright. “If something goes wrong for us, something goes wrong for all of you.”
Local resident Mark Chambers, 57, added: “They’re predicting thousands of years into the future but no one really has a clue. I’m a firm believer that if they can’t deal with the waste, why are they doing it?”
Jon Collins, interim chair of the Sedlethorpe Geological Disposal Facility Community Partnership, which helps people decide whether they want the GDF in the area, said he wanted to ensure there was an “informed debate”.
“Perception is reality,” he added. “People are concerned about safety, and NWS needs to convince people that this is a safe project.”
But former Cumbria county councilor Tim Knowles, who was involved in Cumbria’s first search process, said people needed better access to independent information and advice.
“It’s about trust,” he said. “I have nothing against deep geological facilities, but people have a right to know what they are being asked to accept.
NWS chief scientific adviser Neil Hyatt said he is “more confident than ever” that investment commitments will be met. “We’ve been operating for 120 years or more,” he said. “We must maintain a positive, trusting relationship with this community. This requires us to deliver on our commitments.”
Svlook
