1

BANNG UP TO DATESummer, 2017

An occasional newsletter for supporters of the Blackwater Against

New Nuclear Group (BANNG)

Edited by Andy Blowers (Chair of

BANNG)

Don’t be deceived by the silence on the Bradwell front. The project for a new nuclear power station at Bradwell is still very much alive although little information has been made public. BANNG remains as determined as ever to reveal what is happening and to oppose a project which threatens the safety and security of the Blackwater environment and the local communities. Please continue with your support for BANNG as we enter a new phase in the

………………Please ask your friends to join BANNG

p. 13

Donations

10.

p. 12

BANNG Core Group

9.

p. 11

Gaining Political Support

8.

p. 10

BANNG In Action

7.

p. 9

BANNG In The News

6.

Also in this Issue

p. 8

The Legacy of Nuclear Power. Book launch

5.

p. 6

The Sorry Saga of FED Dissolution (Varrie Blowers)

4.

p. 4

Bradwell B – the Baseload Behemoth (Peter Banks)

3.

p. 4

What Is Going On? Is Anything Going On? (Andy Blowers)

2.

p. 2

Editorial

1.

Main Features

2

effort to stop Bradwell B.

3

1.Editorial

At the beginning of the year the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) announced it had received a request from the Government to commence a Generic Design Assessment (GDA) of the UK HPR reactor technology. This somewhat gnomic statement fires the starting gun for the China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) and its partner Electricité de France (EDF) to begin the long process that may ultimately lead to new nuclear power reactors at Bradwell, the project now known as ‘Bradwell B’.

This long awaited news was met by BANNG and many others with a mixture of dismay and anticipation. Dismay, in the sense that it confirms Bradwell B is still a live project, still a possible if distant prospect. Anticipation, in the sense that the phoney war is over and there is now the promise of engagement in a real battle in which the stakes are high and the outcome fundamental to the wellbeing of the Blackwater environment and its communities.

In a very real sense this feels like Groundhog Day. Years ago, nine years to be precise, when BANNG was set up to oppose the Government’s identification of Bradwell as a site ‘potentially suitable’ for the deployment of new nuclear reactors, it seemed clear we were in for a long haul, years rather than months. And so it has proved. We fought long and hard in

every possible way to prevent Bradwell being nominated. We responded to consultations, held public meetings, enlisted supporters from far and wide, gathered signatures for a mass petition presented to the Minister for Energy, lobbied councils and MPs, pressured government and the nuclear regulators, provided press releases and articles for the media and assembled a carefully researched and authoritative set of papers. It is fair to say that BANNG has developed as a well regarded, professional and effective organisation.

Despite all our efforts Bradwell was one of the sites nominated by the Government in 2011. For a while it seemed that nothing was happening and that the site was so low on the list of possibilities that it might fall by the wayside. Until, in the Autumn of 2015, the President of the People’s Republic of China and the Prime Minister of the UK set out the terms of their future ‘golden relationship’. And, the jewel in the crown, at least for the Chinese, was involvement in the UK’s nuclear programme and the invitation to develop their own reactor design at Bradwell provided they could secure regulatory approval. The UK would thus secure Chinese inward investment while China would gain the passport, endorsed through a rigorous regulatory regime, to a platform for selling its reactors to a world market.

(i) It’s Groundhog Day – but this time it’s for real

4

Seen from above, at the rarified level of government, it was a win-win situation; seen from below, where the environmental and safety impacts would be felt, it was a potential disaster for the Blackwater. There is little doubt this agreement, forged at the highest level, moves the Bradwell site higher up the pecking order in three ways. First, it is backed by a state with funds to invest abroad. Second, the Chinese see this as a prestige project and will not want to lose face in the event of failure. And, third, the other sites currently in the ring are each

meeting with problems. Hinkley Point C has been a disaster financially and serves as a warning to the others. With Toshiba and Hitachi seemingly falling by the wayside, Moorside in Cumbria and Wylfa in Wales still have a way to go in securing investors and overcoming other obstacles. And, up the east coast at Sizewell, EDF (and its junior partner, CGN) may get cold feet after their experience with Hinkley Point. So, Bradwell, though furthest away in terms of process, may make up ground given its Chinese backing.

So, are there reasons to be cheerful? Well, yes, there are several. One is that the Chinese reactor design does not appear to be ready for the GDA yet, so the process is likely to be delayed and protracted. Indeed it’s not clear what design is being put forward. Another is that the case for building big nuclear power stations gets weaker by the day. Energy markets are changing rapidly under a combination of the rise of an array of renewables, a greater focus on demand management through energy conservation, smoothing of peaks and troughs, new systems of storage and localised and integrated distribution networks combining heat and power. At the same time, nuclear’s costs keep rising, its technology keeps failing and its deadlines are routinely missed. By the time Hinkley Point C comes on stream (if it ever does) nuclear’s moment will be over. The behemoth will become a dinosaur.

Perhaps the biggest reason for optimism rests in the knowledge that Bradwell is an unacceptable site for new nuclear power and that the project can be defeated by determined and sustained opposition. It proved hard enough for the government to justify nominating the site and the National Policy Statement on Nuclear Energy was riddled with provisos, contradictions and uncertainties that left the proposal wide open to challenge. A site vulnerable to coastal change, harbouring dangerous spent fuel until at least the middle of the next century is no place to build a nuclear power station.

BANNG has set out its case and will continue its campaign to arrest this awful project. It seems like we are beginning all over again, though this time it is for real. The opposition is strong and determined and, sooner or later, it should prevail.

(ii) Bradwell moving up the pecking order?

(iii) From behemoth to dinosaur?

5

2. What is going on? Is Anything Going on? (By Andrew Blowers)

Ever since the fanfares proclaiming the Chinese were ready and willing to try their luck in building their own reactor at Bradwell, there has been a rather eerie silence. It is difficult to detect how far or fast the project is moving forward. Behind the scenes a lot may be happening or, again, nothing much may be going on. The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in between.

BANNG has made several attempts to prise some information out of the parsimonious team that calls itself the Bradwell B Community Help Desk. The two companies running the project in the persons of Mr. Zhu Minhong, General Manager of CGN, and Mr. Humphrey Cadoux- Hudson, Managing Director of EDF Energy New Build, have proclaimed that they welcome inquiries and public participation. In this spirit of openness and participation we have directed our inquiries to Messrs. Minhong and Cadoux-Hudson but we are always met with the same prevarication conveyed by the Bradwell B Project Team. We are told ‘it would be premature to enter discussions at this juncture’. While participation will be welcomed, to borrow a phrase, now is not the time.

What is there to hide? We have asked for some basic information such as how many reactors will be built, what methods will be used to provide cooling water, what are the outline plans for managing radioactive waste, especially spent fuel, on the site and what proposals are under consideration for mitigating environmental impacts? It seems, to us, inconceivable that information on these matters cannot be vouchsafed. But, we have been fobbed off by the claim that the project is at the very earliest stages, meaning that no proposals have yet been produced.

This is, to say the least, somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps, the lack of any proposals indicates they have encountered problems with the site which is making them hesitate. Are they already having second thoughts about pursuing their nuclear ambitions at such an evidently unsatisfactory, unsuitable and unacceptable site? Or is there more to it and they don’t want to reveal their intentions for fear of the public reaction they might get.

At this crucial point, the best we can do is to discourage them from proceeding further. BANNG’s advice to EDF and CGN is stop now and save yourselves a lot of time, trouble and money. BANNG is ready to oppose this foolish project for as long as it takes to see it defeated.

3. Bradwell B the Baseload Behemoth (by Peter Banks)

The Government continues to justify its new nuclear build programme on the grounds that nuclear is the only low carbon energy that can meet the need for baseload supply. This is the permanent minimum load that the system must be able to deliver at any time. But in reality the Government appears not to be asking the very questions it needs to concerning its attitude and justification toward its new nuclear

programme.

6

In this piece I am going to examine the implications of the prospect of Bradwell B being built on the Blackwater from two perspectives:

❑ Economic❑ Strategic

7

Nuclear Power is becoming more expensive with time. Clearly there are a number of factors responsible for this. An important one is a lack of standardisation in an apparent deference to one of experimentation. Meanwhile alternatives, such as wind and solar, are benefiting from reducing costs as their scale and availability increase whilst meeting lower carbon emission targets.

This pattern follows the implementation of the first generation of Magnox reactors, including the former Bradwell A station, which were based on similar technology and similar output. The next generation were the AGRs (Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor) followed by Sizewell B so far, the only PWR

(Pressurised Water Reactor) to be built in the UK.

And now it becomes clearer by the day how vastly expensive the proposed new developments at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C will be using yet another variation, the European EPR. This design has run into huge overruns of cost and delivery at Finland’s Okiluoto and France’s Flamanville sites. To date, the budget for Bradwell B is unspecified but will still be mind-boggling yet may get approval with funding from the Chinese keen to break into overseas markets.

Many of us growing up in the 50s and 60s and even later will remember power cuts. These were relatively frequent compared to today when they are both rare and random, usually triggered by extreme weather conditions.Furthermore, the management of electricity provision was governed by the guaranteed, regular baseload generation at any given time.This approach focused on supply fromlarge-scale fossil fuel and nuclear power stations.The same principle applies with the new nuclear proposals which have output ratings that are vast compared to their predecessors. For example the Bradwell A Magnox station was originally quoted at 300MW of generating capacity while in practice operating at 246MW.The prospective Bradwell B will use the Chinese designed Hualong 1 reactor with a capacity of more than 1,000MW (or 1

Gigawatt, GW). It is understood that there will be two such reactors at the Bradwell site, a combined capacity of more than 2GW, around ten times that of the former Bradwell station. This, ironically, will increase vulnerability to the very supply the government wishes to protect since, if one station were to go offline, then the percentage reduction in supply would be that much higher.

In addition, there is the requirement to comply with the Paris Agreement to reduce CO2 emissions. Government conveniently reports that electricity generated from the proposed new nuclear developments will be low carbon whilst overlooking the massive carbon emissions that will result from construction of these mega nuclear stations plus the impact of ongoing waste transport and storage.

Economic implications

(i)

Strategic implications

(ii)

8

The alternative approach to meeting the need for electricity, one which reacts to demand rather than supply, is where both the energy industry and the National Grid see the future. With the huge advances in software control it is now possible instantly to manage demand rather than rely on supplying sufficient capacity. This process, called Demand-Side Management (DSM) or Demand Side Control (DSC), also ably copes with fluctuations in renewable generation from wind and solar by smoothing the peaks and troughs. The baseload argument always made in favour of nuclear has effectively become irrelevant. The high strike price built into the Hinkley Point C contract assumes that nuclear energy will run continuously even if it is not needed. Under this scenario nuclear is an inflexible source of supply potentially excluding cheaper renewable sources from the market.

Every weekday the National Grid faces a critical supply 5 minutes, called a TV pickup, when millions of people switch on their kettles after the drums roll in the credits as Eastenders finishes. Typically, this 3GW surge is controlled by a Duty Manager who actually watches the programme to best predict the optimum time to increase supply. This immediate

requirement cannot be met by nuclear power. Instead hydroelectric pumped storage, back up coal and gas stations and large battery storage systems as well as interconnectors across the Channel are called on. Demand Side Management can now go much further than this by enabling the National Grid to reduce temporarily and imperceptibly supply to industry and large hotels. Similarly regional studies are being undertaken to identify the potential contribution to supply that could be achieved from retrieving just a tiny percentage of energy from electric cars when they are connected to charging points.

Along with the reduction of electricity usage in the UK and proliferation of local micro-generation, such as domestic solar, new nuclear will become the White Elephant that economists predict. With the changes in energy efficiency and conservation, a shift to distributed power on the one hand and interconnection on the other, these great behemoths are not only unnecessary but a barrier to efficient, economic and flexible energy supply. Add in a cocktail of the other downsides; security, safety and dealing with the legacy, we must continue to challenge the Government’s new nuclear plans and ask: “why Bradwell B?”

4. The Sorry Saga of FED (By Varrie Blowers)

I am using Scott’s quotation to describe how it appears that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), Magnox and the Environment Agency (EA) have been twisting and turning in their attempts to justify continuing the use of the fuel element debris (FED) dissolution plant at Bradwell.

The NDA and site operator, Magnox, wished to use a process that dissolves fuel element debris (FED) with nitric acid basically to save taxpayers’ money. Dissolution reduces the volume of FED, which is intermediate-level radioactive waste (ILW), by a factor of 20 before it is packaged

‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive’ (Sir Walter Scott).

9

and stored. An abatement plant removes the majority of the radionuclides and heavy metals from the FED but a residue of around 15% of these is discharged into the environment, in this case the Blackwater estuary, and the radioisotopeTritium is also released into the atmosphere. It was originally planned to use this process at the majority of Magnox stations but, as you will see, the bad experience at Bradwell has scuppered this idea.

BANNG has been opposing these radioactive discharges over the past 3 years. Discharging officially commenced on 23 June, 2014 but came to a halt after only two rounds because of very serious technical ‘challenges’ relating to the abatement plant. The situation was considered serious enough for the EA to suggest to Magnox in November, 2014 that a Plan B should be instigated, i.e. the cessation of dissolution and the packaging and storage of the FED. This did not happen. Instead there was an outage that lasted 8 months. Various reasons were given for this: there were fundamental problems with the abatement plant; the process had not been operating to full design output; and, bizarrely, such an extended outage had been planned.

Thanks to Graham Farley of the Mersea Island Environmental Association, the problems with the plant were finally made public at the LCLC meeting in December, 2015. This was eleven months after dissolution re-commenced (March, 2015) and it was obvious that the problems had been extremely serious and included a leak in the abatement plant (detected by luck), failure of safety barriers and questions about the installation and commissioning of the plant and of the operators’ level of skills and experience.

Operational difficulties with dissolution persist to this day. As a result, the date into which the former power station could enter its Care and Maintenance (C & M) phase has continually been put back. But there is much confusion about when dissolution and the associated discharges into the Blackwater estuary of radioactivity and heavy metals will finally cease.

In a second consultation (comprising 2,000 pages in 97 files) of October, 2016, the EA said that Magnox had informally told them that 24 months might not be long enough time to finish FED dissolution. But at the meeting of the Bradwell Local Communities Liaison Council (LCLC) on 14 December, Scott Raish, the Closure Director at Bradwell, confirmed that dissolution of FED would finish in May, 2017.

BANNG had planned to meet with Mr. Raish in early March and would have asked how this amazing reversal in timings had come about but, unfortunately, this meeting was cancelled. Mr. Raish has since stepped down as Closure Director for personal reasons. BANNG submitted its questions to Magnox several times but still awaits the promised response. (As the Newsletter went to publication, this is still awaited.)

The answer may lie in the EA’s recent statement that 50% of the Bradwell FED is actually made up of Low-Level Waste (LLW) which does not require to be dissolved and is being transported to Drigg for disposal. This is a complete contradiction of the information given originally, i.e. the FED was majority ILW.

As far back as March, 2015, the LCLC was told that it would be more cost-effective to package and store the FED arising at Hinkley Point A than to process it by dissolution. The majority of the FED at Hinkley Point A was said to be ILW, as we were told it was at Bradwell. But, in fact, the EA somehow continues to maintain that in the case of Bradwell, but not that of Hinkley Point A, FED dissolution remains the Best Available Technique in the ‘absence of any other disposal route being available’.

But another disposal route is available and it is the one long advocated by BANNG and now

10

being used at other Magnox stations as a result of the severe problems with FED dissolution at Bradwell. It is the packaging and storage of FED.

BANNG believes that the only reason why FED dissolution is continuing at Bradwell is because of the huge amount of taxpayers’ money already expended, said to be £100M+. On top of that, there has recently been a Court case involving the NDA over the way in which the contract to continue decommissioning the Magnox former nuclear stations was awarded. The NDA has had to pay costs amounting to £100M.

Questions need to be asked of the NDA and Magnox as to why investigations which have now shown that the Bradwell FED is 50% LLW, and thus suitable for disposal at Drigg, did not take place before the decision was taken to spend £Ms on just one FED dissolution plant to process just 50% of the Bradwell FED and why the process was not stopped when it became obvious in 2014 that the plant was malfunctioning. It continues to malfunction.

A tangled web indeed!

This article originally appeared in the May, 2017 edition of Estuary Life.

5. The Legacy of Nuclear Power, Launch of Andy Blowers’ New BookAndy Blowers’ latest book, The Legacy of Nuclear Power, was launched at a packed Royal Asiatic Society in London on 11 January. The audience included academics, nuclear campaigners, media, government advisers as well as friends and colleagues Andy has known during his life as social scientist, county councillor, government adviser, nuclear company director and environmental activist. Speaking after the launch Andy said: ‘It was a wonderful occasion and very uplifting. After all these years developing this book it was great to have such a positive and moving reception’.

The lead speaker at the event was well-known environmentalist (or, as he prefers, campaigner for sustainable development) Jonathon Porritt, Director of Forum for the Future. In commending the book, Jonathon stressed the emphasis on the infinite time-scales that nuclear power brings, extending its dangerous and unavoidable presence down the generations. He commented: ‘The nuclear industry invites us, all the time, to look forward – never to look back. Andy Blowers’ compelling study shows why: its legacy, all around the world, is a shocking one, with no long- term solutions to the problem of nuclear waste in sight, and countless communities blighted in one way or another, by the nuclear incubus in their midst’.

In his presentation Andy picked up the theme of nuclear communities, those places such as those around the Backwater, that must bear the burden of the nuclear legacy for generations to come. The book focuses on four nuclear communities in four countries which Andy has visited many times over the years. Each has a specific story to tell – Hanford in the United States, where plutonium for the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki was developed; Sellafield in Cumbria, once described as posing intolerable risks to people and the environment; La Hague in France, where reprocessing works, nuclear power reactors and nuclear submarines combine to create a landscape of risk on the so-called ‘nuclear peninsula’ in Normandy.

11

These three places must live with the risk and this is the problem of the legacy that has to be managed safely and securely for the indefinite future.The fourth community, Gorleben, bears witness to the successful struggle against nuclear power in Germany.

At the end of his contribution Andy argued that we must manage the legacy we already have in safe storage in the hope that a permanent solution to the problem will one day be found. We should not be creating more from new reactors which will add to the burden and perpetuate the presence of spent fuel in stores on deteriorating sites around England and Wales well into the next century and beyond into the far and unforeseeable future.

Bradwell is in clear and imminent danger of just such a future and new nuclear power there would be a danger for the present and a disaster for the future. It must be resisted at all costs. At the conclusion of his speech Andy took heart from the story of

Gorleben. For nearly four decades the people there had struggled against the imposition of a deep disposal mine and a waste store for all Germany’s highly active wastes. The story of the Gorleben Movement and its ultimate success was both moving and inspiring and had been the agent for Germany’s energy transition from nuclear power to renewable energy. Such a future was possible for Britain and preventing the dangers and destruction of the Blackwater by new nuclear reactors at Bradwell was one component in the change to a safe and sustainable future.

Andy has also launched his book in Berlin, Manchester, Boston, USA, and in the Netherlands. It was presented at a national nuclear conference in London on June 17 and later in the year Andy will give a keynote speech at a conference in Braunschweig in Germany. The book is published by Routledge and can be obtained from the publishers using discount code FLR40 via telephone direct 01235 400524, email, tandf@bookpoint.co.uk or online at www.routledge.com

6. BANNG In The NewsOver the past months BANNG has achieved good press coverage especially in the local and regional papers. We now have a monthly feature in the Regional Pages of Estuary Life (see the Life’s index) which has a circulation of 28,000 covering all the Blackwater communities, including Maldon, Mersea, Tiptree and Tollesbury and the Dengie. We also have a

presence in social media and you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Our Press Releases are circulated to all of you and are also published on our website, banng.info

WebsiteOver the past year, a grant from Lush has enabled a new website to be built. It provides regular updates and also archives our documents, newsletters

and press releases. For those interested it is a mine of information about Bradwell and a valuable resource to be deployed in our campaigns. We are well equipped to challenge the developers, regulators and government officials when it comes to the critical decisions about new nuclear at Bradwell. Please see banng.info

12

7. BANNG In Action

(i) Green Party Public Meeting in Chelmsford, 8 December 2016

Last December Andy Blowers was invited to share the platform with Natalie Bennett, former leader of the Green Party, at a Public Meeting in Chelmsford. The speakers argued the case against nuclear energy and

against the Bradwell site in particular. The speeches were followed by a very lively discussion from a large and enthusiastic audience brought together by the Green Party.

(ii) BANNG Public Meeeting in Maldon, 25 April, 2017.

BANNG held a public meeting in Maldon chaired by Judy Lea of the Maldon Society, with the theme of, A new nuclear power station at Bradwell – expensive, dangerous and unnecessary. Professor Stephen Thomas, an energy policy expert, explained that the economic costs and uncertainties facing new nuclear energy were sufficiently great to make it unlikely that any new power stations, even Hinkley Point C, would be constructed in the UK. Professor Andy Blowers, social scientist and former government adviser on nuclear waste policy (and chair of BANNG), set out the reasons why Bradwell was a wholly unacceptable site for a new nuclear station. Finally,

Professor Keith Barnham, nuclear physicist and solar energy expert, showed why the increasing development of a variety of renewable sources of energy were making new nuclear unnecessary. There was a thoughtful response from the audience at what was BANNG’s first public engagement in Maldon, the largest of the Blackwater communities.

(This meeting, as well as earlier ones in Tollesbury and Brightlingsea, is part of BANNG’s strategy to raise public awareness among the Blackwater communities, broadening the basis of support.)

(iii) Green Party Public Meeting in Woodbridge, 24 May, 2017.

Andy Blowers was invited to speak at a Green Party Public Meeting in Woodbridge, entitled Suffolk, Sizewell C and the Environment. Andy gave his view that we were witnessing the demise of the nuclear industry as it was facing huge investment problems. It was still not certain that even Hinkley Point C would be built, let alone any of the other planned stations. Among the other speakers was Baronness Jenny Jones, Green Party spokesperson in the House of Lords, whose theme was justice (social, economic and environmental).

13

(iv) Responding to Consultations

Over recent months BANNG has responded to two consultations.

• (a) Response to the Environment Agency’s Second consultation on the Magnox request to extend the period of permission for discharge of radionuclides and heavy metals arising from dissolution of FED into the Blackwater (Varrie Blowers and Barry Turner).

This was the Environment Agency’s second consultation on the extension request. It comprised 2,000 pages and acknowledged throughout that there were continuing serious problems with the fuel element debris (FED) dissolution plant. It also hinted throughout that it was minded to grant the request, which it duly did. The BANNG response can be found under Consultations and is BANNG Paper No. 31. Please also see item 4 above.

• (b) Response to the consultation by Electricité de France (EDF) on Sizewell C proposed development stage 2 pre-application (Andy Blowers).

BANNG has responded to the Pre-Application consultation which covers planning and environmental issues. Our response points out the station is not needed and, therefore, the environmental damage is unnecessary. We have emphasised the vulnerability of the coastal site in the face of coastal change and sea-level rise as climate change will increasingly impact on it into the next century. This response follows a previous response to a consultation that we made in 2013. Our responses on Sizewell C can be found on our website under Consultations (BANNG Papers Nos. 18 and 32).

8. Gaining Political SupportOne of BANNG’s most important tasks has been to try to gather support from local councils and politicians.

(i) Colchester Borough Council

Andy and Varrie Blowers, Barry Turner and Peter Banks, representing BANNG, recently met with the Leader and Deputy Leader of Colchester Borough Council (CBC) when it was confirmed that the Council maintains its opposition to new nuclear build at Bradwell, in accordance with the motion passed unanimously by Full Council in February 2008.

Andy said after the meeting: ‘It was good to continue BANNG’s close relationship with Colchester Borough Council and to re-affirm our common position in opposition to the development of any new nuclear power station on the Bradwell site.

Cllr. Paul Smith, Leader of Colchester Borough Council, said: ‘The Council continues to have grave concerns that a new nuclear reactor so close to the Borough and a major population centre will also have a detrimental effect on a unique and sensitive marine environment. I am encouraged that we have been able to work closely with BANNG to find common cause in opposing the government’s plans for Bradwell B. It is vital that the views of those most likely to be impacted by the proposals are given full and frank expression to inform the final

14

decision’.

15

Cllr. Tim Young, Portfolio Holder for Culture and Regeneration, and Deputy Leader of the Council, said: ‘You really do not need a crystal ball to realise that another nuclear power station on our doorstep will bring with it an increased risk to public safety and the natural environment, which will continue to impact generations to come. We need to ensure the promoters of Bradwell B take our concerns seriously. Working alongside BANNG will enable us to have a stronger voice to influence policy and the final decision on whether or not to proceed with this dubious scheme’.

(ii) West Mersea Town Council

West Mersea Town Council (WMTC) is opposed to new nuclear development at Bradwell. It has established a Bradwell Sub-Committee and among its members are Barry Turner, Ian Clark and Peter Banks, all of BANNG’s Core Group. Peter is also a WMTC Councillor. Sophie Weaver, a WMTC Councillor and member of the Bradwell Sub-Committee, has recently joined BANNG’s Core Group.

(iii) BANNG and government

BANNG has kept in touch with local MPs and Bernard Jenkin has declared his concerns about the potential environmental harm and damage to the Blackwater from a new nuclear station.

At national level, BANNG has access to regulators and government through membership of the BEIS (Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)/NGO Forum and the ONR (Office for Nuclear Regulation)/NGO Forum. At the local level, we meet with the Environment Agency and regularly attend the Bradwell LCLC (Local Communities Liaison Council) to present our views on decommissioning and clean-up of the former Bradwell A power station.

9. BANNG Core GroupSince the last Newsletter, the Core Group has three new members. They are:

• John Vince, who has taken over from Lynn Hartley as Treasurer. John is well experienced in financial matters;

• Peter Banks, who is a member of the Green Party and also a West Mersea Town Council Councillor;

• Sophie Weaver who started and runs the Fight Against Bradwell (FAB) Facebook action group. Sophie is also a West Mersea Town Council Councillor.

We would like to say a big thank you to Lynn for all her hard work as Treasurer. Lynn is continuing as a Core Group member.

We should also like to say a big thank you to Professor Barry Jones, who has stepped down from membership of the Core Group. Barry continues to support BANNG.

16

Thanks

BANNG would like to thank Sophie Willcock of Voice Communications, Layer Marney, for formatting the Newsletter.

And, finally……Please ask your friends and relatives to join BANNG

The more supporters BANNG has, the better. So, if you have any friends and relatives who are affected by the proposals for Bradwell, please encourage them to join the campaign. This can be done via the website (banng.info).

Published by the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG), 8 Shears Court, West Mersea, CO5 8DB

10. DonationsWe would ask supporters to renew their donations. The suggested annual donation is £10. We ask you to donate what you feel appropriate and whatever you give, it will help towards running the BANNG campaign. Thank you if you have recently sent a donation to BANNG.

Please send your donations to the BANNG Treasurer, 8 The Lane, West Mersea , Colchester, CO5 8NT.

Supporters who have not in the past had an e-mail addressIf you now have an e-mail address, can you please send a message to let the BANNG Secretary know on varrieblowers@yahoo.com