Heysham power station debate sparks questions on safety and incidents

It followed a recent announcement by the government and EDF about extending the generating lives of Heysham’s two nuclear reactors and the possibility of smaller reactors being there in the future.

Labour Coun Phillip Black, the former city council leader who resigned in November, put forward a motion backed by others, welcoming the news about extending Heysham 1’s and Heysham 2’s generating lives to 2027 and 2030.

Labour councillors and some others also wanted the council to state it had ‘confidence’ in the safety considerations underpinning the date extensions. And they also wanted the council to state support for new nuclear’ activity at Heysham in future.

However, others including many Greens, said Labour was irresponsible with the motion, given the wide spectrum of responsibilities councillors were supposed to consider.

Green Coun Gina Dowding said: “It’s really irresponsible to bring these two issues into one motion. Both are really important and deserve separate consideration.

“I recently asked a qualified architect, who has spent her working life on nuclear issues, about this. She said it would be deeply irresponsible for the council to ‘welcome’ the extensions. Extending the operating dates beyond the sites’ lifetimes should be questioned by the council – that is our role,” she emphasised. “These buildings were built in the 1980s based on reactor designs in the 1970s.”

She added: “We should also look at anomalies, such as an unforeseen circumstances , which are increasingly happening. There have been unplanned shut-downs. There was one last week. A loud bang was heard and a cloud seen, which concerned residents and the fire brigade was called.”

She also highlighted the proximity of the Heysham nuclear site, along with one at Hartlepool in the north-east, to areas with populations of over 100,000. She added: “At Heysham, the majority of people would be down-wind of any incident. So any motion saying this is ‘great for the future’ is not appropriate. Just because nothing has happened so far does not mean it couldn’t happen in future.

“Of course, there are skills and jobs in nuclear energy. But there are also skills and jobs in the decommissioning stages. Also in renewable energy, along with the potential to create more jobs and generate electricity for less cost.”

But Labour Coun Matthew Black said: “I have three generations linked to the power station. My granddad helped build it. My dad started work there as a toolmaker and later had other roles including being a manager. My uncles worked there. I worked there when I was a student during the summer outages.”

The power stations symbolised positive things, he said, including local pride and offered good opportunities.

Conservative Andrew Gardiner backed the Labour motion but wanted extra details . He said: “I support nuclear power. Wind-farms would be a blot on the landscape. Nuclear power provide good jobs and also allows people to enjoy this beautiful area. But we need a time-line for the future and to know more about new technologies.

“I think the phrase about ‘confidence’ is vital. If we cannot say to the public that we believe in this and have confidence, what are we doing?”

But Green Coun Nick Wilkinson said: “This feels like we are putting political support and pressure on scientists. I don’t think we should.”

Fellow Green Tim Hamilton-Cox said. “Small modular reactors are still beyond the horizon and we have not yet got a permanent solution for nuclear waste. Some councillors have been against having that discussion. Speaking personally, I am not against nuclear power per se. But there are still many considerations and still no permanent solution for waste.”

Lib-Dem Peter Jackson, a member of the city council’s new cabinet, said: “I invite Labour councillors to bring forward a separate discussion about future Heysham questions as soon as possible.”

Morecambe Bay Independent Martin Bottoms, also on the new cabinet, also argued the extensions and any future developments should be treated separately. New modular reactors would not be on the horizon until at least 2025.

But Labour councillors opposed separating current and future topics.

Labour’s Martin Gawith said: “We want the future included in this motion because we want the new government to get on with things, to allow Rolls Royce to work on technology and for new jobs and opportunities. The previous Conservative government delayed things too.”

Labour’s Colin Hartley said: “Yes, the power stations are not in their first flush of youth. But technology has changed and people would not work there if they thought it was dangerous. I live in the estate next to the power station.”

Labour’s Margaret Pattison said: “I attended a recent nuclear meeting and the people who gave a report were excellent. They are professional . I’m not happy with Gina’s scaremongering. The power station has good jobs, apprenticeships and other things. I’ve lived in the Overton area all my life and I have not gone a funny colour yet.”

And Labour’s Louise Belcher said: “Smaller modular reactor technology was originally used on nuclear submarines, This is tried-and-tested technology. And every unit of electricity produced by nuclear power means one less unit generated by gas, which is a greenhouse gas.”

In a vote, the majority of councillors backed Labour’s motion.