1. It Is a Moral Issue – Why We Should Say ‘No’ to Nuclear Andrew Blowers Presentation at Thornbury, November 2010

2. Flowers Report there should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long lived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future’ (RCEP, Nuclear Power and the Environment, 6 th. Report, Cmnd 6618, para. 27)

3. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) 1.Within the present state of knowledge CoRWM considers geological disposal to be the best available approach for the long-term management..when compared with the risks associated with other methods of management. 2.A robust programme of interim storage must play an integral part in the long term strategy….that is robust against the risk of delay or failure in the repository programme. 4.There should be a commitment to an intensified programme of research and development into the long-term safety of geological disposal aimed at reducing uncertainties… 5.The commitment to ensuring flexibility in decision making should leave open the possibility that other long-term management options..could emerge as practical alternatives. (Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely, CoRWM’s Recommendations to Government, November, 2006)

4. CoRWM on New Build The main concern in the present context is that the proposals might be seized upon as providing a green light for new build. That is far from the case. New build wastes would extend the timescales for implementation, possibly for very long but essentially unknowable, future periods. Further, the political and ethical issues raised by the creation of more wastes are quite different from those relating to committed - and therefore avoidable – wastes. (CoRWM, 2006, p.15)

5. White Paper on Nuclear Energy 2008 ‘..before development consents for new nuclear power stations are granted, the government will need to be satisfied that effective arrangements exist or will exist to manage and dispose of the waste they will produce’ (CM 7296, 2008, p.99)

6. NPS on Nuclear Power Generation – EN-6 ‘Geological disposal is the way higher activity waste will be managed in the long term’ ‘no new issues arise that challenge the fundamental disposability of the wastes and spent fuel expected to arise from operation of the reactor designs currently being assessed by the GDA process’ (EN-6 revised, Annex B)

7. NPS EN-6 on timescales for disposal ‘The Government has therefore not set a fixed delivery timetable..’ ‘..the Government is developing a clear timeline for the implementation of geological disposal..’ (Annex B)

8. NPS EN-6 on radwaste policy ‘..the Government is satisfied that interim storage will provide an extendable, safe and secure means of containing waste for as long as it takes to site and construct a geological disposal facility’. ‘Having considered this issue, the Government is satisfied that effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power stations’ (Annex B)

9. EN-6 on number of sites Given the very limited number of sites identified as potentially suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations before the end of 2025, the Government considers that all eight are required to be listed in this NPS. This is to allow sufficient flexibility to meet the urgent need for new nuclear power stations whilst enabling the IPC to refuse consent should it consider it appropriate to do so. (EN-6 revised, p.9)

10. EN-6 on flood risk to sites..the Government has determined that all of the listed sites are required to be listed as being potentially suitable for new nuclear development in spite of some being located in higher flood risk zones because of the lack of alternative sites and the need for new nuclear development. (EN-6 revised, p.21)

11. EN-6 on Mitigation..applicants should identify the potential effects of the credible maximum scenario in the most recent projections of marine and coastal flooding. Applicant must then be able to demonstrate that they could achieve further measures for flood management at the site in the future if future climate change predictions show they are necessary. (EN-6 revised, p.20)

12. EN-6 on protection of sites The Environment Agency has advised that it is reasonable to conclude that a nuclear power station within the nominated site could potentially be protected against flood risks throughout its lifetime, including the potential effects of climate change, storm surge and tsunami, taking into account possible countermeasures. (Annex C p. 27)