Latest News

The next meeting of the above, which is now open to the public, is 6.30-8.30 this Wednesday, 9th November, at the Guide Hall, Millom. Here is more information including the agenda (minutes not available yet!)

At last night’s meeting of Whicham Parish Council it was agreed to survey parishioners on their views regarding the GDF.

It would be wonderful if Millom Without and Millom Town Councils would do the same. Having said that, as the proposed site is likely to be across Haverigg and Kirksanton, why should Millom make the decision and not folk who live in Haverigg?

HOW CAN SOUTH COPELAND GDF COMMUNIITY PARTNERSHIP (AND MILLOM TOWN COUNCIL, WHICHAM AND MILLOM WITHOUT PARISH COUNCILS) TRUST THE DEVELOPERS WHEN THEY PERPETUALLY LIE OR GIVE MISINFORMATION?

For example,

1. Local councils were initially told they needed to sign up to the Community Partnership in order to access the funding – it later turned out they could still access the funding whether or not they were in the CP.
2. We (the public) were told the Community can withdraw at any time:  not true, only Copeland and NWS can withdraw at any time.
3. We were told the developers will take into consideration environmental issues:  not true, they used exemption to get permission for seismic surveys despite research which says these are dangerous to marine life.
4. We were told the community will be at the heart of the siting process and decision-making:  not true, the community has not been consulted on where the GDF will be sited nor have we taken part in any decision-making.  (Unless, of course, the Community Partnership is considered to be ‘the community.’)  Even the baseline survey, which found 61% were against the GDF being sited here is being ignored on the grounds that only about 150 people took part.  But they will use the findings to fine-tune their message to the public.
5. We were told to come and meet the experts at information events:  no nuclear experts there – many of locals who attended knew more about the issues.
6. In making their decision to grant exemption re seismic surveys, the Marine Management Organisation said they “understand that NWS have had ongoing engagement with the public via their community partnerships.” NWS might have ongoing engagement with the public via the community partnerships but neither they nor the community partnerships take any notice of what the public say.
7. In letter of 21^st October NWS say “currently no site for the surface elements of a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) have been identified. The current studies are focused on understanding the feasibility of hosting a GDF in South Copeland and any potential site will not be identified until these studies have been completed which could take 3 – 5 years.”  It is quite clear from the Initial Evaluation Report that the area they are looking at is the old airfield at Haverigg and part of Kirsanton.

If after analysing the results of the seismic surveys the developers wish to continue to the next stage of drilling bore holes, how can we trust them to do this in a way that the radioactive mud which lies on the seabed all along the coast of south and mid Copeland, is not disturbed?  Or will the MMO – who will need to give permission – simply waver an exemption again because it is ‘research’?????

On 13th October the following email was sent to Millom Town Council:

TO:  Millom Town Council 

In light of the results of the random base-line survey of local people disclosed at the meeting of South Copeland GDF Community Partnership last night, i.e. 

• 61% against the GDF being sited here (of whom many were strongly opposed) 
• 27% in favour 
• Reasons given why against:  safety and security; environment; transportation; infrastructure 
• Wanting more independent information from experts on:  safety; environment; waste transportation; economic impact; impact on future generations 
• 44% said they wanted the information from the Council and they wanted to know what the views of the Council are regarding the GDF for or against 

As well as the strong questioning and opposition by the CALC rep, Millom Without and Whicham councillor reps regarding several, significant, aspects of the process so far with implications that the developers were not listening to their concerns. 

It is clear that the majority of constituents in Millom and Haverigg are opposed to the GDF being sited here.   

Will Millom Town Council come off the fence and tell its constituents whether they, as a Council, are in favour of or against the GDF being sited here? 

Will Millom Town Council put forward a motion to the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership to withdraw Millom, Haverigg and Kirksanton from the search area for a GDF? 

Or, at the very least, hear what the constituents are saying in the survey and seek independent advice from experts to discuss the issues raised in the survey and share this with the constituents? 

Thank you. 

Here is their response, dated 27th October 2022:

Dear Ms Bridget

South Copeland GDF Partnership

Thank you for your email dated 13th October which was brought to Millom Town Councillor’s attention at the meeting last night.

In answer to your questions, Millom Town Council (MTC) will, for the foreseeable future, continue with its neutral stance on the possible siting of a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) off the coast of South Copeland as ultimately should a suitable site be identified, the community will make the final decision.

We will also not be withdrawing from the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership as this is a major infrastructure project that aims to protect people and the environment for generations to come. Withdrawing from the partnership serves no purpose, as the process does not require MTC to be around the table to continue. It is our collective responsibility as a council to ensure that process is transparent, open and robust to ensure our community has all the information required to make an informed decision should the process develop to that stage.

As a Council, we will continue to monitor the views of the community and ensure that they are fed into the discussions of this process over the coming years as more information becomes available.

A complaint against the Deputy Mayor of Copeland and Borough Councillor David Moore will be heard by the Standards and Ethics Committee of Copeland Borough Council on 25th October 2022.

The complaint is being brought by nuclear safety group Radiation Free Lakeland who campaigned vigorously against the seismic testing (often called “blasting”) carried out in August to test the geology deep under the Irish Sea bed for a high level nuclear waste facility known as a Geological Disposal Facility.

Founder of Radiation Free Lakeland Marianne Birkby said “Immediately following the seismic survey there have been visible damaging impacts including dead and displaced harbour porpoises (reported to Cetacean Strandings UK) and hundreds of dead jellyfish washed up on West Cumbrian beaches. The long term impacts will be felt by marine life for years to come and that was just the start of the nuclear dump developments. Councillor David Moore will, despite his financial and personal nuclear interests, be aiming to rubber stamp further GDF developments without a by-your-leave from the full council or from the public. It is a nuclear fiefdom in Copeland and this is clearly becoming increasingly undemocratic and dangerous for Cumbria and Cumbria’s neighbours.”

TWO COMPLAINTS

1. 50,000 signatures on the petition opposing seismic blasting are an “odd few” says Councillor Moore on the BBC News (2nd August).
2. Cllr David Moore’s failure to declare interests at the Executive meeting of 12th July at which the Petition of then nearly 50,000 signatures was presented.

Context: In January 2013 the then Conservative leader of Cumbria County Council, Eddie Martin, led councillors in refusing to take the next steps (stage 4) towards the Delivery of a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). The next steps would have included intrusive investigations of the geology of Copeland which is already very well studied and known to be complex and faulted. In November 2021 Copeland Borough Council joined the new GDF process of Partnership with Nuclear Waste Services. That Partnership has opened the flood gates on invasive investigations the first being, seismic blasting. There has been no public vote nor even a vote by the full Copeland Borough Council on whether investigations should take place. Decisions on GDF- which since Cumbria County Council’s NO vote has been designated a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project – are delegated to the Copeland Executive without reference to discussion or vote by the full council (or the public).

At a meeting of the shadow authority Cumberland Council held on 18^th October a motion was proposed to write to the chairs of the three Community Partnerships to ask them to review the areas of search for a possible Geological Disposal Facility in Cumberland, take full account of public opinion and the views of Councillors representing wards wholly or partially within the current areas of search when undertaking that review and consider reducing or removing entirely some Areas of Search.

Only three councillors voted for the motion:  two greens and one independent; Labour, Liberal Democrat and Tory councillors all voted against the motion giving, for the first time, a clear indication that the new Cumberland Council which comes into being in April next year, supports the siting of a GDF in Cumberland.  This is a blow but perhaps not entirely unexpected as all major parties support nuclear power.

Millom Town Council’s mayor, and county councillor Bob Kelly, spoke against the motion.  The following comments are based on notes taken at the meeting and cannot be guaranteed totally accurate:  He began by saying he had some sympathy with the motion.  With reference to the recent baseline survey commissioned by the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership which found 61% against the GDF and 27% in favour, Cllr Kelly discounted this result on the basis that the respondents were not yet fully informed.

He said it was important not to close off the partnership, that they need to be kept going so that councils can have a say.  He agreed the current set up might not be ideal but they will look at the make-up of CPs later.  He added they must look carefully at proposals and that nothing will be pushed through. He noted (as NWS told the recent CP meeting in Millom) that early on people everywhere were against the GDF but over time, in places where it has gone ahead, they have changed their minds and come round to the idea. (This needs fact checking).

At last night’s South Copeland GDF Community Partnership meeting held in Millom and attended by about twenty members of the public, the results of the baseline survey the CP commissioned from an independent company Yonder were shared. The survey was conducted in two Copeland electoral wards (Millom and Black Combe and Scafell). It was a random survey which included 158 interviews and 20 x 30 minute conversations with residents. The purpose of a baseline survey is to find out at the beginning of a project the status of the subject. Here are some of the results:

• 85% had heard about what was going on
• 3/4 aware of the search area and Community Partnership
• Half identified accurate description of GDF
• 61% against the GDF being sited here (of whom many were strongly opposed)
• 27% in favour
• Reasons given why against: safety and security; environment; transportation; infrastructure
• Wanting more independent information from experts on: safety; environment; waste transportation; economic impact; impact on future generations
• 44% said they wanted the information from the Council and they wanted to know what the views of the Council are regarding the GDF for or against

In light of this several letters have been sent to Millom Town Council asking them to consider their position on the Partnership.

The South Copeland GDF Community Partnership are now making the minutes of their meetings available on their website. Other documents they have produced are also available there, including the minutes of the Working Party which preceded the Partnership.

They are also seeking a wider membership although you will have to be quick as the deadline for applications is tomorrow (to be fair, they have been advertising for a while now). However, if you are thinking of applying you might want to consider the following comments:

• it is all part of their grooming process
• many opponents to GDF would see it as a sell out
• it would curtail your ability to challenge the actions of the CP outside of CP meetings
• it would suborn you to decisions made by the majority favouring taking the project forward
• you could not call for local Parish Councils to withdraw from the CP if you are in it.

There are also suggestions that their meetings may well become public in the near future (see their August minutes).

A distinguished group of nuclear experts has launched a new independent advisory service for nuclear waste disposal.

The group’s collective expertise adds up to many decades of work in this controversial area, including advising government, the nuclear industry, environmental groups and NGOs. Its members’ specialisms cover policy, planning, public engagement, geology, and technical aspects of nuclear waste disposal and storage.

Disposal of high activity nuclear waste has been an unsolved problem for six decades. This launch coincides with a renewed search for a Deep Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in England & Wales. Any new programme of reactors could require more than one facility of this kind.

Currently this process is being led by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Its Nuclear Waste Services division has already established Community Partnerships to consider hosting a GDF in four areas of England. Three are in Cumbria: mid-Copeland, South Copeland and Allerdale. A fourth, Theddlethorpe, is in Lincolnshire. Other areas identified in the future as potential GDF sites may also benefit from NWAA services.

The group’s brochure sets out the range of issues that communities and local authorities need to consider. It is attached to this press notice and available on the NWAA website

A NWAA spokesperson said:

‘All of these Community Partnerships are currently being advised only by the industry, which is also the delivery body. The need for independent advice has never been more urgent as communities consider the serious nature of these proposals, not just for the present time but far into the future.

‘Geological disposal is a massive project and its impacts will be similarly huge. We aim to ensure that local authorities, communities and Community Partnerships get the whole picture.’

Press Release from Radiation Free Lakeland, 25th August 2022:

On the Gov.UK website there is a triumphant message:

“NWS’ first marine geophysical survey off the coast of Copeland, Cumbria, was successfully completed on 18 August. This non-intrusive survey has gathered data to provide a better understanding of the deep geology and supports the search to find a suitable site for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).”

Over 50,000 people opposed the seismic survey to test the geology for a deep nuclear dump under the Irish Sea.

The “non-intrusive” seismic survey blasted marine life with sound every five seconds 24/7 for 20 days. There was no public consultation , not even a vote by Copeland Borough Councillors who are supposedly “Partners” in the GDF Community Partnership.

Radiation Free Lakeland have written to the Joint Nature Conservation Conservation Committee urging them to halt all seismic blasting in the UK in marine protected areas. Seismic blasting in marine protected areas would not be allowed in the US who have much more stringent rules on seismic blasting which has been banned in the Atlantic to protect marine life.

Here the seismic survey carried out by Nuclear Waste Services and Copeland Borough Council under the guise of “scientific research” has had impacts that have been witnessed already. Witnesses have seen harbour porpoise displacement, reported the strandings of dead seals and harbour porpoise at Drigg and the strandings of hundreds of dead jellyfish at Silloth. (distressing photos and report of cetacean deaths not published here but sent to the UK Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme)

The seismic survey will have negative impacts on our marine life for the months and years to come. This is the collateral damage from the Government’s policy to foist a deep hot nuclear dump under Cumbria and the Irish Sea.

Marine Pollution Expert Tim Deere-Jones has reflected : ” jelly fish are sensitive and well aware of their surroundings……. Jelly fish have receptors for a wide range of “senses” that respond to touch, light, gravity, chemicals and pressure waves/sound. Sensitivity to sound pressure waves and vibration has been inferred by observational studies of moon jelly fish (Aruelia spp:). Studies have concluded that sound pressure waves/sound are detected and mediated by the equivalent of “sound receptors”.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that medusae form numerous small crystals, which are collected in sac-like statocyst located at the distal ends of their rhopalia. Rhopalia are complex sensory organs, which have been associated with pulsing, swimming and orientation and that act as gravireceptors, which enable medusae to position themselves in an upright posture after tilting.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has revealed major injuries in the statocyst sensory epithelium of both jellyfish and coral species after exposure to sound, that are consistent with the manifestation of a massive acoustic trauma observed in other species. The presence of acoustic trauma in marine species like moon jelly medusa (adult forms), shows the magnitude of the problem of noise pollution and the complexity of the task to determine threshold values that would help building up regulation to prevent permanent damage of the ecosystems.

Ref:….. “Evidence of Cnidarians sensitivity to sound after exposure to low frequency noise underwater sources.” Marta Sole et al’. Scientific Reports. Vol 6: article number 37979. Nature. 21st December 2016.s

The seismic blasting has been hailed “a success” by Nuclear Waste Services – the marine life says otherwise https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-nws-marine-geophysical-survey-successfully-completed