|
Those interested in this issue might be interested to learn
that spent Nuclear Fuel has been transported by rail in the UK since
1962. Although other routes have been successfully used within the UK
and between the UK and other countries, the majority of spent nuclear fuel
within the UK is transported by rail. It is estimated that since 1962
these movements have covered some 6 millions miles. In 2000/2001 the
Greater London Authority (GLA, the elected people who assist the Mayor of
London in the areas which have been devolved to him by the UK
Government) undertook a review of "The transportation of nuclear waste by
train through London". This review was undertaken by a group known as
the Nuclear Waste Trains Investigation Committee. This committee consisted
of six members of the GLA representing each of the four main parties in
London. The chairman of the committee was Darren Johnson, a representative
from the Green Party.
In the foreword to the report the Chairman
stated:
"We found that the transport of spent nuclear fuel in this
country has an excellent safety record. Many millions of miles have been
travelled by trains carrying flasks of nuclear material and no accident or
incident has taken place involving the release of radioactivity.
But the Assembly, and the authorities concerned, are well
aware that just because something hasn't gone wrong yet doesn't mean there can't
be a problem tomorrow or the next day, and that constant vigilance is
essential. Our investigations revealed some areas where we think sensible
improvements could be made."
Having read the report available at www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/nuc_waste/repoct01.pdf
I was particularly pleased to find that it wasn't adversarial but rather adopted
a constructive and problem solving approach. An example of this is given in this
quote from the executive summary.
"Were there to be a serious accident and major release of
radioactivity the consequences for Londoner could be severe. It is
essential that everything possible is being done to avoid such accidents and
that the emergency services and authorities are fully prepared in the event of
such an emergency taking place."
How much easier it could have been to simply state that the
consequences of a major release of radioactivity would be too severe and that
the movement of spent nuclear fuel through London should cease
immediately. No talk of mobile Chernobyls here!
I don't wish to reproduce the report here, it is available in
full at the URL given above, but there was one other interesting comment I
wanted to highlight.
The following is given in the section 3.7 of the
report.
snip> The consideration of risk has in recent
years become a matter of political importance and some sensitivity.
Bromley Council made the point succinctly, stating that used fuel transport by
rail was a "very emotive issue for those residents affected" and that it was
"difficult for those people to obtain an objective view of the risks involved,
principally due to the fact that experts in this field are either employed by
the nuclear industry, or speak from an environmental ' anti-nuclear'
viewpoint". Bromley submitted a report from their Environmental Services
Committee which stated that the "lack of any proven risk does little to dim
residents' concerns". There were similar concerns in other London
Boroughs............We were told that there was a need for a cross-London
assessment of risk, carried out by an independent entity.<snip
The above seems to capture the dilemma of the public quite
nicely. They don't trust the nuclear industry but neither do
they trust the environmental lobbyists.
regards
Julian Ginniver
|