�The Future of Nuclear Power� Hinkley Point � 15 August 2007

							‘The Future of Nuclear Power’
Hinkley Point – 15th August 2007

Meeting with site stakeholder groups and other community representatives

Attendees

Name                                  Organisation
Colin              Allen              Cannington Parish Council
Barbara            Child              Former councillor
Nic                Crocker            Avon and Somerset Police
Adrian             Downes             Bridgwater Councillor
Graham             Granter            Deputy Mayor of Bridgwater
Phillip            Harris             Amicus Trade Union
Sue                Jones              Stogursey Parish Council
Nigel              Knee               Business Development, BE
Peter              Lancaster          REA
John               Lucas              West Hinkley Action Group
Duncan             McGinty            Leader Sedgemoor District Council
John               Nightingale        Somerset Wildlife Trust
Martin             Pearce             External Comms, BE
Nick               Pidgeon            Cardiff university
Robin              Prowse             Natural England
Doug               Robson             Bridgwater Carnival
Shirley            Rushent            Kilve Parish Council
Mike               Short              Chair Site Stakeholder Group
Derek              Skeats             Stogursey Parish Council
Sharon             Stewart            Magnox South
Dorothy            Vickery            North Petherton Bowling Club
Debbie             Webb               Dungeness B Power Station

Session 1: Nuclear Consultation Process

a) There was a short presentation from a BERR official on the consultation process,
   focusing on the following areas:
    •   The consultation objectives and nature of invitation
    •   The key components:
            o Consultation document and available formats
            o Consultation website (www.direct.gov.uk/nuclearpower2007)
            o Stakeholder and citizen events; attendance at Youth Parliament
            o National press advertising and search marketing activity
            o Mailing sent to 5,000 interested organisations; copies of the consultation
               document sent to all UK libraries on the Publicity Register
            o The independent evaluation programme
            o Other work and consultations happening concurrently to the nuclear
               consultation
            o Post-consultation process
Note: all presentation slides are available on www.direct.gov.uk/nuclearpower2007


                                      -1-
b) The presentation was followed by a Q&A session at which the following questions and
   discussion points were raised:

Participant:
When will the government decide?

Lead facilitator:
The consultation ends on the 10th October. The Department has started to read what is
coming in and needs time to consider responses. It is currently planned that the
Government will make a decision by later this year, but timings have yet to be confirmed.

Participant:
What will the government do if the majority of people say no to nuclear?

Lead Facilitator:
This consultation is not a referendum, where the number of votes will determine the
decision. The Government will be looking for arguments and evidence, rather than pure
expressions for/against, and for the conditions associated with acceptance (e.g. need to
make more progress on waste management before we go ahead with a new nuclear build
programme).

A participant expressed concern that the consultation exercise should result in meaningful
impact. There was a strong feeling raised by others that the Government needs to stop
deliberating and make a decision, especially given that power stations have long lead
times. One felt that the Government has been elected to make decisions and should do
so with input from the experts. There was a feeling that Government needs to act more
dramatically, building programmes and investing in new technologies very swiftly, since
further delay could put us at the end of the queue internationally, and increase costs to
building for new nuclear in future. A decision is needed about nuclear, quick action on
renewables – the energy gap is anticipated for 2015 onwards, when we will find ourselves
in a very precarious situation.

The lead facilitator confirmed the government’s commitment to acting swiftly.

Participant:
Are you confident that you won't be challenged again?

Lead Facilitator:
It is legitimate to think that there might be another Judicial Review, although we are
learning from the previous consultation and making this one as robust as possible.

There followed a discussion about attendance at the event, out of 60 invited, 20 attended.
Whilst some felt that the response was fairly good, others raised that anti-nuclear NGOs
may not attend meetings that are on nuclear sites. Drop-in sessions were suggested as a
less intimidating and more convenient way for members of the public to express their
views.




                                      -2-
Session 2: Considering whether new nuclear build should be an option as part of
the future energy mix

a) A presentation was delivered by a BERR official which covered the following areas:
   •   Setting the consultation in the context of meeting the dual challenges of climate
       change and security of supply
   •   The Government’s response to these challenges in the Energy White Paper,
       published May 2007
   •   Data contained within the consultation document on the carbon emissions from
       nuclear power generation
   •   The possible contribution of nuclear power to security of supply
   •   The need for a diverse energy mix and information on energy efficiency, demand
       reduction and investment into renewables.
   •   Scenarios on projected carbon emissions to 2030 with and without nuclear power
       stations.

b) At the end of the presentation, the following questions were posed for discussion by
   delegates at their tables and then in plenary:
   i) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view on carbon emissions from
        nuclear power stations? If so, what are your reasons?
   ii) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s views on the security of supply
        impact of new nuclear power stations? What is the reasoning behind your view?
   iii) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s views on the value of having
        nuclear power as an option?

Summary of table and plenary discussion

Question 1) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view on carbon
emissions from nuclear power stations?

One participant expressed the view that the messages are no different from 7-8 years ago,
and that the most significant point he had taken from the presentation was the decrease in
percentage of renewable energy, down from 6% to 4% a few years ago.

Many agreed with the Government’s view on carbon emissions from nuclear power
stations, with one table considering the limits of wind power, and the fact that an
alternative power supply would be needed alongside wind. They questioned from where
we would get this if we rule out nuclear. Whilst some delegates thought that wind turbines
are ugly – others felt that it is better to have something ugly than potentially dangerous.

One participant felt that the potential impact of nuclear on CO2 emissions was limited by
airport expansions and other high pollution activities continuing to take place.

Another delegate highlighted that we need to consider whether nuclear is a legitimate
solution at all. He believed that the UK, as a developed country, should set an example to
other countries, and that it would be valid to look at CO2 reductions from an international
perspective.

The lead facilitator highlighted that we need to replace not only the capacity of nuclear
power stations going off-line, but also gas and coal stations to help reduce carbon
emissions. Work is needed on a number of fronts.


                                      -3-
Question 2) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view on the security of
supply impact of nuclear power stations?

There was a strong feeling amongst some delegates that nuclear is necessary to help
ensure the security of UK power supply. It was suggested by some that the Government
has no choice but to consider nuclear in order to meet the current need. Two delegates
felt saw nuclear as a 'necessary evil', and it was felt that more money should be invested
to develop safer, renewable sources, with ‘safer’ meaning an appropriate trade-off
between benefits and risks.

Some participants felt that wind power could not be relied on for security, given that the
load factor is 9-30% (inland vs. on the coastline), and that wind turbines only reach their
full power 20% of the year. It was suggested that sooner rather than later, the
Government needs to decide how much wind power would be viable, due to the source’s
variability in power input.

One delegate questioned the availability of nuclear. Another compared the reliability of
nuclear (they gave the example of Sizewell functioning at 98% capacity) with that of coal
(capability factor in lower 80s).

A participant estimated that 60% of the UK’s gas is currently imported, and that the current
limited dependency on Russian gas could increase. They considered that uranium was
likely to be available from countries with which we have more stable relations, but that this
could perhaps change.

One participant asked about the impact the use of renewables could have on total energy
supply vs. just electricity. The group discussed that gas is only used currently because it
is considerably cheaper, and that if scarcity of resources increased, we could switch to
coal as an alternative, as happened two years ago in the winter.

There was concern that by 2023 we could have one nuclear plant running which will
provide approximately 3% of the UK power supply, and the number of wind turbines that
need to be built to achieve the 20% target is not being met. Concerns were raised by
some about the risks involved in continuing with the current situation. A delegate asked
whether we would have to rely on France to meet the demand.

It was felt that given that the energy gap is anticipated at 2015 onwards, the Government
needs to do something now, and should have started already. Specifically, they need to
act swiftly on renewables, make a decision on nuclear, and make tough decisions on
reducing power use.

Question 3) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view on the value of
having nuclear power as an option?

There was a discussion about who would fund and own new nuclear power stations, and
specifically whether these would be Government-funded, or owned by UK or foreign
companies. The facilitator highlighted the current situation with a diverse range of
companies supplying our commodities, and clarified that if companies subscribed to
competition law, they could invest – this could well include foreign companies.

The facilitator clarified that the Government is not planning to build any new nuclear power
stations; it will need to be a commercial decision to come forward, and private companies

                                      -4-
will be required to meet the costs, including decommissioning. There was great concern
expressed that private investors may not be willing to take on the potentially enormous
decommissioning costs, and that the taxpayer would end up paying for them.

Many participants expressed a sense of urgency that we really need nuclear and that with
plenty of time to develop capacity, Government has been very short-sighted to have
waited. Participants thought that CCS was interesting but unproven technology.

Session 3: Nuclear safety and waste
a) A presentation was delivered by a BERR official on nuclear safety and waste, which
   covered the following areas:
     •  The five main safety issues of exposure to radioactive materials, the threat of a
        major nuclear accident, the threat of terrorism, the potential impact of a natural
        disaster and the transport of nuclear materials.
     •  Considerations on nuclear waste
     •  Ethical considerations involved in deciding to build new nuclear power stations
     •  Financial protection and legislation to ensure that the private sector set aside
        funds to cover the costs of waste and decommissioning
     •  Managing and disposing of new waste

b) At the end of the presentation, delegates were asked to discuss the following questions
   at their tables and then in a plenary session:
    i) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view on safety, health, transport
         and security issues?
    ii) What do you think are the ethical considerations related to a decision to allow new
         nuclear power stations to be built?

Summary of table and plenary discussion:

Question 4) Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s views on safety,
health, transport and security issues?

Waste
Discussion focused on two areas:
- Whether decisions around current waste will be applied to new waste
- What would be the trade offs around waste and climate change.

As far as the storage of waste is concerned, some participants raised the need to
challenge the CoRWM recommendation of underground storage before going ahead.
They felt there is a strong argument for storing waste above ground, and used the
example of France disposing of their waste in a facility similar to Sellafield on a peninsular
of Cherbourg. Many felt that long-term solutions are needed to deal with waste, such as a
deep geological repository. It was highlighted by other delegates that CoRWM have gone
through a detailed process across 2-3 years.

Delegates discussed how the higher level waste could be quantitfied, and whether we
reprocess waste. It was clarified that current policy is not to reprocess new waste, and
that any new power stations would produce less waste. CoRWM figures were referenced
as a good guide. One participant estimated that there are 500,000 cubic metres of higher
level waste, and that power stations would result in increasing higher level waste by 10%
and would need a larger repository to accommodate it – so if there are currently 6 Albert
Halls (equivalent), this would add an additional one. Some delegates felt reassured by the

                                       -5-
perceived small quantities being discussed. One delegate raised that the vault on the
Sizewell B site can accommodate 30 years of waste and that nothing has gone off site yet.

A delegate asked whether repositories are being proposed on sea or land. The lead
facilitator explained that a consultation is currently in progress to look at proposed siting for
one substantive repository for the country – the location will be community dependent (if
the Government decided to go ahead, consultations would look at more detailed questions
focusing on the local communities). There was some awareness of the possibility of a site
in Cumbria, which is considered geologically suitable for a repository.

One participant expressed concern about the safety of current on-site storage of waste,
given that we are now considering a very deep hole as the safest way to dispose of waste.
Another reassured them that there was no suggestion that the storage near sites is not
robust and safe, and that the safety considerations around future storage are around the
long term – thousands of years – rather than the next 30 years.

It was raised that within this country, despite very safe processes, there have been some
concerns locally about contamination, and albeit very low levels of contamination have
happened on a number of occasions, which has generated negative publicity and public
concern. It was agreed by some tables that standards need to be monitored closely.

It was felt by one delegate that no progress has been made on waste over the last 50
years and that one of the key messages from this consultation should be to resolve the
long-term waste problem, before pursuing other issues.

Transport
There was some concern about the safety of transport, and knowledge of the procedures
around it.

The transport of waste through Bridgewater was raised as a big concern for residents, and
despite positive testing of the integrity of the containers, there was concern that in the
context of 9/11, modern times may present dangers that we cannot foresee, and the more
waste we have, the more potential danger we are under.

An industry participant expressed that industry are never arrogant about safety, and
although it would be irresponsible to talk about what the arrangements are, they reassured
the group that there are numerous and routine checks and constant reviews.

Safety
There was some concern about whether there was adequate protection against terrorism
and accidents, and security was an ongoing concern.

Whilst there was a degree of confidence in the security procedures at the local plant, there
was concern expressed about the possibility of human error.

It was felt that industry need to be less secretive, and more open about the benefits of
nuclear, and that the myths and preconceptions need to be tackled.

More consideration was thought to be needed around safety, e.g. how to stop a plane, and
air exclusion zones were suggested to improve safety. Some participants thought that
safety measures need to be foolproof, and if this is not possible, one considered whether
this was a reason not to have nuclear.

                                        -6-
Question 5) What do you think are the ethical considerations related to a decision to
allow new nuclear power stations to be built?

Ethical considerations discussed during the session were:
- Moral duty to dispose of waste safely
- Service underground to protect from weather
- Consideration for ensuring continued supply
- Cost considerations and siting
- Safety of pylons

Session 4: Final considerations
During the final session, attendees were asked to consider the following key consultation
questions:
 i) Having considered all the issues, and in the context of tackling climate change and
     energy security do you agree or disagree that it would be in the public interest to give
     energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations?
 ii) Are there any considerations that you believe should be put in place before giving
     energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations?
     (For example restricting build to the vicinity of sites, or restricting build to
     approximately replacing the existing capacity?)
There was broad agreement from many tables, with the following conditions cited:
 • Two over-riding ones were resolving waste management and reassurance about
    safety
 • The impact on environment of new construction - recognition that we need to
    compensate through improvement to local environments for building nuclear power
    stations
 • Public need reassurance on terrorism and flooding (echoing waste issue).
 • Current sites are favoured due to being in unpopulated areas
 • Need to continue to have a broad energy mix – there was some feeling that the market
    would do this anyway.

Notes from the plenary discussion session:
One delegate felt that many attendees had an interest in nuclear power which needs to be
reflected in summary.

Another felt that we need nuclear, but also need to invest in renewables as well. They felt
that the Government should make it more affordable, and educate our children and future
generations about energy.

The lead facilitator closed the meeting by thanking participants for attending the event and
mentioned that BERR are going to a number of different site stakeholder meetings over
the next few months.




                                      -7-