Science & Technology CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Sedgemoor District Council (Risk 15)
Executive Summary
1. The key points influencing risk perceptions are seen to be national media reporting and the influence of NGO’s and pressure groups that take a specific position with regard to nuclear power.
2. In our experience local communities are more objective in their perception of risk. They perceive that there is a potentially high impact yet low likelihood of a catastrophic event at the power station. Whilst the issue of likelihood is acknowledged and understood by local communities to be low they are nonetheless aware of the unique and significantly high harmful impact if a catastrophic event were in fact to occur. Those implications are potentially significantly more harmful and different from the potential impacts of a catastrophic event in other forms of energy production.
3. The planning process for nuclear power infrastructure projects has no reasonable mechanism to deal with risk and the perception of risk for the communities affected. The issues of risk perception and tolerability have no outlet within this framework. Communities and those that represent them have no means of articulating or redressing these issues within the planning process. There is no arena for an objective and considered discussion of these issues or potential solutions.
4. The planning process as a regulatory function is the most easily engaged with and understood process for individuals and communities. The other technical regulatory processes for nuclear energy are less understood and more “expert” driven in a technical way. Communities are used to engaging through the planning process which touches in one way or another many people’s lives. The failure of the planning process to allow for the objective consideration of the assessment of risk, its perception and tolerability, is a significant gap that undermines the creditability and “fitness for purpose” of the process.
5. The failure of current promoters of new nuclear development to agree a community benefit regime similar to that already in assistance for the renewable energy sector, undermines the confidence of the communities in relation to the risks associated with nuclear power stations. The availability of a negotiated community benefit fund for those local communities would increase the potential engagement of those communities in the wider consideration of risk and toleration of risks associated with nuclear power.
6. Risk to human health and wider environmental risk from a catastrophic event is not dealt with in the environmental impact assessment element of a planning application. The risk however low of adverse affects resulting from the exposure of radiation to the public or the environment is not considered.
7. The failure of the national policy statement on nuclear energy to address risk and perception of risk from the exposure to radiation is also a significant oversight that must be remedied before the new generation of nuclear power is developed. It is insufficient for this significant issue to be dealt with through the other more technical and less accessible regulatory regimes.
8. Both Local and Central Government fail to communicate adequately in regard to risk, perception of risk and tolerability. To undertake an objective consideration of such issues requires technical and expert support. Local Government is in a weak position with limited resources to support communities compared with well resourced Project Promoters such as EDF. Central Government has failed to support Local Government in their work to consider and support communities through a complex and technical process.
9. Communication from Government on the issue of risk has been weak or non-existent and the void is filled by NGO’s and pressure groups who potentially have a single position of being against nuclear power per se. There are therefore inadequate resources for the communities to engage adequately in an objective and open minded manner.
10. Local authorities should act as a community resource for objective consideration of risk and tolerability of risk. Local authorities should be adequately resourced to even out the current inequalities of resources between those who promote new nuclear projects and the communities affected.
Introduction
1.1 Sedgemoor District Council is pleased to have the opportunity to submit written evidence to the Committee’s inquiry on Risk Perception and Energy Infrastructure and welcomes the Committee’s examination of this important issue. We would welcome an opportunity to give oral evidence to the Committee and are happy to provide additional information.
1.2 Sedgemoor District council is situated in the County of Somerset. The authority has a significant coastline along the Severn Estuary and is predominantly rural with its main town being Bridgwater. The District has good communication links along the M5.
1.3 It is proposed that Hinkley Point C (HPC) will be the first new generation nuclear power station built in Britain. The promoters EDF Energy have now submitted an application for a development consent order for a new nuclear power station which is currently before the Infrastructure Planning Commission.
1.4 West Somerset Council is the relevant local planning authority for HPC. The nature of the geography however means that the proposed new nuclear power station lies adjacent to a number of communities in Sedgemoor District Council, namely the village of Cannington and Bridgwater Town itself. The impact of the development and construction will be felt in the Sedgemoor District particularly as all communication routes will have to go through Sedgemoor and Bridgwater in order for construction to take place.
1.5 In order to progress the HPC development, West Somerset Council and Sedgemoor District Council with Somerset County Council have collaborated to set up a single team for the purposes of considering planning and other regulatory processes and impacts on the community. The Councils affected requested support from the Government in order to support local communities through the process and to provide an objective and reasoned set of representations to the IPC. This request was refused. The Councils have however been supported through the process by a planning performance agreement funded by the promoters of the project EDF Energy. This has permitted the authorities to commission support from appropriate technical experts to assist them in representing their communities.
Evidence on Risk Assessments, Communication Perception and Tolerability in Regard to New Nuclear Development
2.1 Communities adjacent to HPC have lived with the presence of nuclear energy production since 1957 when construction began. On site there is currently Hinkley Point A, which is being decommissioned and Hinkley Point B which is still producing energy. The communities are therefore accustomed to the presence of nuclear infrastructure, which has provided jobs for those living in the adjacent communities. The current nuclear power stations have had no serious or significant events that would exacerbate the issue of risk for local communities. In fact the continued safe operation of the current sites has done much to reassure local communities about the realistic levels of risk in living adjacent or close to a nuclear power station.
2.2 The perception of risk however remains for those communities as they are aware of the implications of a catastrophic event would potentially be more significant and detrimental than a similar event at a coal fired power station, for example. The distribution of iodine tablets to local communities for use in the event of a release of radioactive material acts as a constant reminder of the additional risks that exist for a nuclear power station. The events at Fukushima (and the ongoing repercussions) in addition to other historic problems at nuclear power stations have also impacted on the perception of risk.
2.3 It is also recognised through the local authorities emergency disaster processes, that the manner in which a catastrophic event at Hinkley Point would impact on communities and individuals is more significant and greater than those for other energy facilities. Whilst communities take comfort from the long period over which the current facilities have operated without incident, it merely has the effect of emphasising the low likelihood of the risk rather than minimising the impact of the seriousness should an event take place.
Current Planning Process
3.1 New nuclear infrastructure projects are required to be dealt with by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. An application for a DCO is currently before the IPC for HPC.
3.2 The planning process is one which is commonly understood and actively engaged in by individuals and communities. Of all the regulatory processes it is less technical than most and the one with which communities and individuals are most accustomed to engaging. It is important from a creditability point of view that the process is seen to be open and transparent and to take into consideration all relevant matters. In the normal course of a planning application, PPS 23 “Planning and Pollution Control”, would ensure that considerations of impact, risk assessment, perception and tolerability were taken into account. PPS 23 Annex A sets out the matters for consideration when deciding individual planning applications. At the penultimate bullet point it cites the following as a relevant consideration in the planning process:
“the objective perception of unacceptable risk to health or safety of the public arising from the development”.
In these circumstances issues of risk and tolerability would potentially be a material consideration for the planning process.
3.3 The DCO process that has been instituted by the Planning Act 2008 requires the IPC to consider large infrastructure projects against the national planning statement issued by the Government. The recently issued national policy statement (NPS) on nuclear energy exhorts the IPC to consider applications based on the guidance contained therein. In dealing with risks to health, particularly in regard to releases of radioactive material, the NPS states the following at 3.12.11:
“The IPC should act on the basis that the risk of adverse effects resulting from exposure to radiation for workers, the public and the environment, will be adequately mitigated because of the need to satisfy the requirements of the UK’s strict legislative and regulatory regime as well as the ONR’s implementation of the government’s policy on demographics.”
3.4 Curiously this policy guidance suggests that the issues of risk and perception of risk in regard to exposure to radiation is one that is not appropriate for consideration within the planning process. Instead it is already one that has been resolved through other regulatory processes. This contrasts with the requirement in other areas, through PPS 23.
3.5 It is also evident that the issues of risk and perception of risk and their tolerability by local communities is not catered for within the environmental impact assessment regulations. In their scope they do not require the consideration of risk and perception of risk but are more concerned to deal with potential harm to people and the environment and how that should be mitigated or removed. This is dealt with in an extremely technical way, which has the effect of excluding the public and communities who do not have the resources or technical ability to challenge or engage in these areas. Whilst there is the requirement to produce a non-technical summary, the ability to challenge or make representations in regard to issues of risk require technical capacity if it is to be done in a reasoned, objective and relevant way.
3.6 This leads to support for communities being offered by NGO’s or pressure groups (many not themselves local) often with a single objective. In the case of those groups that are anti-nuclear, then the support and technical advice given to communities or individuals who may want to consider the issues of risk come in the main from that perspective. In terms of generating an objective and considered discussion, this does not assist and as the process does not address legitimate concerns on risk, then communities and individuals feel excluded and thus the process and final decision has diminished creditability. It is the view of Sedgemoor District Council that the consideration of risk and tolerability is best placed within the planning process as it is the process that is best understood and actively engaged in by communities and individuals. The placing of the consideration of risk and tolerability in the more technical and less familiar scientific processes of other regulatory considerations, does not adequately deal with legitimate community concerns.
3.7 This is exacerbated by the inadequate funding for local authorities to support communities and individuals in their consideration of technical matters. The key to objective consideration of risk and its ultimate tolerability lies in good communication and adequate engagement with communities and individuals in a technically complex area. The need for support for local authorities to ensure adequate technical resources are provided is key. Small Rural District Councils do not carry expertise in these areas and such expertise is both scarce and expensive.
3.8 The resources of all the Councils involved in Somerset have been dedicated to meeting the requirements of the processes set out by the Planning Act 2008 and the National Policy Statement which have by their effect excluded the issues of risk and tolerability. The limited funding provided by the developers through the PPA has meant that the authorities have had to choose to restrict their communications, considerations and engagement with communities to those issues that are directly relevant to the planning process. It has not allowed for a wider engagement and discussion or significant communication on the issues of risk, perception of risk and tolerability. This on the face of it is a significant gap in the process.
Communication with Communities and Individuals and Community Benefit
4.1 As with the issue of risk and tolerability of risk, the provision of community benefit is a matter that currently sits outside the planning process. Community benefit is the internationally accepted form of compensation paid to communities hosting large impactful infrastructure projects, particularly nuclear power stations. Payments are made from the developer’s and Energy providers into a fund that communities can access as they consider most beneficial to make the hosting of a new nuclear power station more tolerable. There are many examples of this approach internationally. Community benefit is paid in such diverse countries and USA, Japan, France, Italy, Spain as well as being in place for renewable and low carbon energy projects in the UK.
4.2 Currently community benefit, despite having been referred to once in the NPS has not been accepted by promoters of new nuclear infrastructure. There is an assertion that it may be perceived as “buying” planning consent. It seems to those authorities and communities affected by this, that there is no grounds for such a perception to arise. The decision as to whether infrastructure projects should be granted consent lies with an independent objective body the IPC and on to the Secretary of State.
4.3 Sedgemoor District Council’s view is that there would be an opportunity for a more rounded discussion about risk and tolerability of risk within the context of the provision of a community benefit fund. Whilst the planning process may provide for compensation through Section 106 Agreements for direct and indirect impacts arising from the construction and operation of the new nuclear facility, there are wider issues of impact and risk that do not fall within the planning process. In particular the perception of risk from a significant catastrophic event at a nuclear power station is one that is not covered by the planning process. Nor is the greater perception of risk created by the issue of iodine tablets to the local communities. It would not be dealt with by the Section 106 Agreement as the NPS has stated that the issue of human health and risk are matters for consideration in other regulatory formats where compensation and Section 106 Agreements have no place.
4.4 The acceptance by the Government and developers of the appropriateness of community benefit for communities hosting renewable energy projects has national acceptance. The potential impact on communities of new nuclear is both greater and more significant. The provision of community benefit would seem in these circumstances more appropriate and necessary. It could also be used appropriately as a catalyst for consideration of the wider issue of risk, perception of risk and tolerability for communities. In the absence of this there is no reasonable context in which such considerations can take place alongside wider issues of risk and impact of hosting a large infrastructure project that will benefit the nation.
4.5 The Councils in Somerset have accepted that the pursuit of community benefits lies outside of the planning process and have put in place lines of responsibility which respect this issue. However, it would seem completely appropriate to run a community benefit discussion parallel with the planning process so that risk and toleration of risk can be properly considered (along with other relevant issues). A swift move to a comprehensive agreement in this regard between government, local authorities and potential developers would have the benefit of settling this matter at an early stage.
4.6 In preference, however, it would be more appropriate to ensure that both the issues of risk, perception of risk and tolerability and payment of community benefit to communities affected by new nuclear power stations should be included within the planning process. Both these issues lie outside the consideration of the planning process currently. There is failure to communicate these issues with communities and no resources for local authorities to step in and take up these issues with those communities.
4.7 There is no reason why the Government through an amendment the NPS or through separate policy or advice could not ensure that the planning processes adequately deal with and considered risk, perception of risk and tolerability as well as appropriate direct funding to support communities affected. This could also be coupled with a proper consideration of community benefit for each project promoted through the planning process. Specifically permitting these areas to be included in the planning process would remove the alleged perception of “buying” planning permission.
4.8 This could be delivered by ensuring that community benefit is a matter for local negotiation and settlement within the planning process and a matter the IPC should ensure is adequately dealt with and provided for before considering any application before it. In any event as the IPC would not be a direct beneficiary of any community benefit they cannot be tainted in reaching their own independent and objective conclusion. This would ensure the transparency and openness in such a process if adopted.
14 December 2011