Please write a letter / e-mail to oppose current and future generations of British nuclear weapons (sample letter provided) – DEADLINE FOR PLANNING OBJECTIONS: 9 NOVEMBER
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has submitted a planning application for a new facility at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) site at Burghfield in Berkshire (part of AWE Aldermaston), which is where warheads for the current Trident missile system are assembled and refurbished. The new facility (buildings) is for manufacturing the non-nuclear components of a warhead.
The project has serious safety risks on a number of counts, both during the building phase and once it is operating.
An article published in the New Scientist (19 September 2007) reveals that AWE Burghfield has been struggling to remedy more than 300 safety defects uncovered by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), “and it has only been allowed to remain open because the Ministry of Defence says the work it does is vital.”
See report here:
http://www.robedwards.com/2007/09/safety-warning-.html
and here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/381982.html
Please help stop this facility being built; it is where vital components for nuclear warheads will be made. This is a real chance to help block current and future nuclear weapons programmes. It is important they receive as many objections as possible.
*WHAT YOU CAN DO:*
Write to the Planning Officer of West Berkshire council objecting to the new developments – ideally by post, but e-mail is fine too (contact details + sample letter provided below: feel free to modify template as you wish).
*The deadline for planning objections is FRIDAY 9 NOVEMBER*
Your objections should be purely on "planning" grounds (visual appearance of building, environmental impact, traffic management etc). While legal, moral and safety grounds are not technically grounds for objection, these have been noted in previous planning officer reports.
Please write - quoting application number 07/01686/COMIND - to:
Clive Inwards
Senior Planning Officer
Council Offices
Market Street
Newbury
Berkshire
RG14 5LD
E-mail:
cinwards@westberks.gov.uk ; planapps@westberks.gov.uk
Tel: 01635 519111
Fax: 01635-519408
**It would also be worth sending copies of your letter / e-mail to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the Environment Agency (EA):**
NII:
Communications and Stakeholder Engagement (CASE) Team
Nuclear Directorate general enquiries
CASE Team
Desk 25
4N.1 Redgrave Court
Merton Road
Bootle
L20 7HS
E-mail: NDenquiries@hse.gsi.gov.uk
Phone: 0151 951 3484 / 3290
EA:
Environment Agency
PO Box 544
Rotherham
S60 1BY
E-mail: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
Phone: 08708 506 506 (Mon-Fri 8-6)
**SAMPLE LETTER** (modify as you wish):
To: cinwards@westberks.gov.uk, planapps@westberks.gov.uk
CC: NDenquiries@hse.gsi.gov.uk, enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
Subject: AWE Burghfield - planning application 07/01686/COMIND
Dear Mr Clive Inwards, Senior Planning Officer,
Re: AWE Burghfield - planning application number: 07/01686/COMIND
I write to express my very strong objections to any new developments at AWE Burghfield, especially in light of the over 300 as yet unresolved public safety and environmental issues at the facility cited recently in the New Scientist (19 September, 2007 – see: http://www.robedwards.com/2007/09/safety-warning-.html ).
There must be a public inquiry into this application on the grounds that sufficiently detailed information regarding the serious risks to public health and safety and the environment (both on site and off site) involved in the preparation of the site for construction, as detailed below, has not been provided by the applicant.
Risk 1 - radiation: HM Inspectors (Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII))
have been consulted on this application, which suggests that that there
is a radiation risk to this activity. However, this is not disclosed on the application.
Risk 2 – explosion: The Land Contamination Statement states that
contamination has been found, and that there is a “high” risk of explosion during excavation of the site, including from residue in drains and from disturbing buried ordnance.
Risk 3 – contamination: the redundant buildings may have contaminated the ground, and both surface and groundwater is at risk. What are the dangers involved in the remediation works needed in advance of construction to remove contamination from the site?
Risk 4 - radioactive waste: no indication is given in the application about the storage on site of low-level radioactive waste materials from redundant buildings and excavated materials.
Risk 5 – flooding: in light of recent floods in the area (including Burghfield), what precautions have been taken in planning drainage to avoid flooding and contamination; as mercury - probably from the existing manufacturing facility - has contaminated the groundwater in the past.
AWE and the Ministry of Defence must not be allowed to proceed with this scheme, which proposes that they would monitor such risks “as they go along”. In view of the New Scientist report cited above, which states that AWE Burghfield has failed to comply with instructions from the NII to rectify as many as 1000 known faults, with over 300 still outstanding as of September 2007, how can AWE and the MoD possibly be trusted to remedy risks they discover “as they go along” with the new build? It is totally unacceptable to allow developments likely to raise serious new health and safety and environmental concerns to go ahead without the risks being identified, managed, controlled and removed prior to any new development. If it is given the go ahead, legal challenges can be expected.
I also wonder whether the MoD and AWE have even begun to consider the breaches of international humanitarian law and non-proliferation treaties inherent in building new facilities to facilitate the production of new nuclear warheads, and without parliamentary approval. One doesn’t go to the trouble of building new multi-million pound facilities and recruiting hundreds of new staff, including warhead designers, just to maintain an existing stockpile. What would the UN say if this were known to be happening in, say, Iran?
Finally, any new facility would further spoil the beautiful natural surroundings; and the expected increase in traffic on neighbouring roads - including heavy construction vehicles - is also a concern.
Yours sincerely,
Further background:
*We are asking everyone to call for a public
inquiry into this application, on the grounds that
sufficient detailed information
about the serious risks to health and safety
involved in the preparation of the site for
construction has not been provided by the applicant.*
If you wish to add more detail in your letter
please include the following risks:
* *Risk 1 - radiation*: HM Inspectors (Nuclear
Installations
Inspectorate) have been consulted on this
application, which
suggests that that there is a radiation risk
to this activity,
however this is not disclosed on the
application;
* *Risk 2 – explosion*: The Land Contamination
Statement states that
contamination has been found, and that there
is a “high” risk of
explosion during excavation of the site,
including a risk of
explosion from residue in drains and from
disturbing buried ordnance.
* *Risk 3 - contamination* - the redundant
buildings may have
contaminated the ground and both surface and
groundwater is at
risk. What are the dangers involved in the
remediation works
needed in advance of construction to remove
contamination from the
site?
* *Risk 4*: *radioactive waste*. No indication
is given in the
application about the storage on site of
low-level radioactive
waste materials from redundant buildings and
excavated materials
* *Risk 5 - flooding* - in light of the recent
floods in the area
(including Burghfield) what precautions have
been taken in
planning drainage, to avoid flooding and
contamination, as mercury
- probably from the existing manufacturing
facility has
contaminated the groundwater in the past.
We believe that:
• the MoD should not be allowed to proceed
with this scheme, which proposes that they would
monitor such risks “as they go along”; [you could
add .. especially in view of the recent report in
the New Scientist that Burghfield have been unable
to comply with instructions form the NII to
rectify known faults, how can they be trusted to
remedy risks they discover as they go along with
the new build)
• that it is not acceptable to allow
developments which are likely to cause serious
health and safety risks without those risks being
identified, managed, controlled and removed before
development
• this application should be called in for
a public inquiry on the grounds that sufficient
detailed information about the serious risks to
health and safety has not been provided by the
applicant.
*DETAILS OF THE PLANNED FACILITY*
*Application details*
Application Number: 07/01686/COMIND
Address: Atomic Weapons Establishment, Burghfield
Reading, Berkshire, RG30 3RP
Applicant: MoD Estates Blandford House Aldershot
GU11 2HA Tel: 01252 361922
Proposal: New small-scale components manufacturing
facility, associated plant and landscaping.
Expiry Date for Standard Consultation: 09/11/07
For further details see
http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=07/01686/COMIND
The new “small-scale manufacturing facility” will
prepare components for the “positioning and
sealing of other components”. This means that it
will manufacture components, which are used in the
refurbishment of the current warheads, which are
periodically returned from the warhead store at
Coulport in Scotland to Burghfield where they are
dismantled and rebuilt with new components
(expected to be in use until at least 2022).
The components will be produced in small batches,
and used periodically. (They include: Polyurethane
foams; polyurethane adhesives; silicone “potting”
compounds; ceramic components; synthetic rubbers
and metallic “blanks” or “spacers”. This suggests
that the facility will manufacture the non-fissile
components of a warhead.
See also:
AWPC: http://www.aldermaston.net/
Block the Builders: http://www.blockthebuilders.org.uk/index.php
Trident Ploughshares: http://www.tridentploughshares.org/index.php3
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: http://www.cnduk.org/
Latest news articles: http://www.banthebomb.org/blog/index.php
The project has serious safety risks on a number of counts, both during the building phase and once it is operating.
An article published in the New Scientist (19 September 2007) reveals that AWE Burghfield has been struggling to remedy more than 300 safety defects uncovered by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), “and it has only been allowed to remain open because the Ministry of Defence says the work it does is vital.”
See report here:
http://www.robedwards.com/2007/09/safety-warning-.html and here:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/381982.html Please help stop this facility being built; it is where vital components for nuclear warheads will be made. This is a real chance to help block current and future nuclear weapons programmes. It is important they receive as many objections as possible.
*WHAT YOU CAN DO:*
Write to the Planning Officer of West Berkshire council objecting to the new developments – ideally by post, but e-mail is fine too (contact details + sample letter provided below: feel free to modify template as you wish).
*The deadline for planning objections is FRIDAY 9 NOVEMBER*
Your objections should be purely on "planning" grounds (visual appearance of building, environmental impact, traffic management etc). While legal, moral and safety grounds are not technically grounds for objection, these have been noted in previous planning officer reports.
Please write - quoting application number 07/01686/COMIND - to:
Clive Inwards
Senior Planning Officer
Council Offices
Market Street
Newbury
Berkshire
RG14 5LD
E-mail:
cinwards@westberks.gov.uk ; planapps@westberks.gov.uk Tel: 01635 519111
Fax: 01635-519408
**It would also be worth sending copies of your letter / e-mail to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the Environment Agency (EA):**
NII:
Communications and Stakeholder Engagement (CASE) Team
Nuclear Directorate general enquiries
CASE Team
Desk 25
4N.1 Redgrave Court
Merton Road
Bootle
L20 7HS
E-mail:
NDenquiries@hse.gsi.gov.uk Phone: 0151 951 3484 / 3290
EA:
Environment Agency
PO Box 544
Rotherham
S60 1BY
E-mail:
enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk Phone: 08708 506 506 (Mon-Fri 8-6)
**SAMPLE LETTER** (modify as you wish):
To:
cinwards@westberks.gov.uk, planapps@westberks.gov.uk CC:
NDenquiries@hse.gsi.gov.uk, enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk Subject: AWE Burghfield - planning application 07/01686/COMIND
Dear Mr Clive Inwards, Senior Planning Officer,
Re: AWE Burghfield - planning application number: 07/01686/COMIND
I write to express my very strong objections to any new developments at AWE Burghfield, especially in light of the over 300 as yet unresolved public safety and environmental issues at the facility cited recently in the New Scientist (19 September, 2007 – see:
http://www.robedwards.com/2007/09/safety-warning-.html ). There must be a public inquiry into this application on the grounds that sufficiently detailed information regarding the serious risks to public health and safety and the environment (both on site and off site) involved in the preparation of the site for construction, as detailed below, has not been provided by the applicant.
Risk 1 - radiation: HM Inspectors (Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII))
have been consulted on this application, which suggests that that there
is a radiation risk to this activity. However, this is not disclosed on the application.
Risk 2 – explosion: The Land Contamination Statement states that
contamination has been found, and that there is a “high” risk of explosion during excavation of the site, including from residue in drains and from disturbing buried ordnance.
Risk 3 – contamination: the redundant buildings may have contaminated the ground, and both surface and groundwater is at risk. What are the dangers involved in the remediation works needed in advance of construction to remove contamination from the site?
Risk 4 - radioactive waste: no indication is given in the application about the storage on site of low-level radioactive waste materials from redundant buildings and excavated materials.
Risk 5 – flooding: in light of recent floods in the area (including Burghfield), what precautions have been taken in planning drainage to avoid flooding and contamination; as mercury - probably from the existing manufacturing facility - has contaminated the groundwater in the past.
AWE and the Ministry of Defence must not be allowed to proceed with this scheme, which proposes that they would monitor such risks “as they go along”. In view of the New Scientist report cited above, which states that AWE Burghfield has failed to comply with instructions from the NII to rectify as many as 1000 known faults, with over 300 still outstanding as of September 2007, how can AWE and the MoD possibly be trusted to remedy risks they discover “as they go along” with the new build? It is totally unacceptable to allow developments likely to raise serious new health and safety and environmental concerns to go ahead without the risks being identified, managed, controlled and removed prior to any new development. If it is given the go ahead, legal challenges can be expected.
I also wonder whether the MoD and AWE have even begun to consider the breaches of international humanitarian law and non-proliferation treaties inherent in building new facilities to facilitate the production of new nuclear warheads, and without parliamentary approval. One doesn’t go to the trouble of building new multi-million pound facilities and recruiting hundreds of new staff, including warhead designers, just to maintain an existing stockpile. What would the UN say if this were known to be happening in, say, Iran?
Finally, any new facility would further spoil the beautiful natural surroundings; and the expected increase in traffic on neighbouring roads - including heavy construction vehicles - is also a concern.
Yours sincerely,
Further background:
*We are asking everyone to call for a public
inquiry into this application, on the grounds that
sufficient detailed information
about the serious risks to health and safety
involved in the preparation of the site for
construction has not been provided by the applicant.*
If you wish to add more detail in your letter
please include the following risks:
* *Risk 1 - radiation*: HM Inspectors (Nuclear
Installations
Inspectorate) have been consulted on this
application, which
suggests that that there is a radiation risk
to this activity,
however this is not disclosed on the
application;
* *Risk 2 – explosion*: The Land Contamination
Statement states that
contamination has been found, and that there
is a “high” risk of
explosion during excavation of the site,
including a risk of
explosion from residue in drains and from
disturbing buried ordnance.
* *Risk 3 - contamination* - the redundant
buildings may have
contaminated the ground and both surface and
groundwater is at
risk. What are the dangers involved in the
remediation works
needed in advance of construction to remove
contamination from the
site?
* *Risk 4*: *radioactive waste*. No indication
is given in the
application about the storage on site of
low-level radioactive
waste materials from redundant buildings and
excavated materials
* *Risk 5 - flooding* - in light of the recent
floods in the area
(including Burghfield) what precautions have
been taken in
planning drainage, to avoid flooding and
contamination, as mercury
- probably from the existing manufacturing
facility has
contaminated the groundwater in the past.
We believe that:
• the MoD should not be allowed to proceed
with this scheme, which proposes that they would
monitor such risks “as they go along”; [you could
add .. especially in view of the recent report in
the New Scientist that Burghfield have been unable
to comply with instructions form the NII to
rectify known faults, how can they be trusted to
remedy risks they discover as they go along with
the new build)
• that it is not acceptable to allow
developments which are likely to cause serious
health and safety risks without those risks being
identified, managed, controlled and removed before
development
• this application should be called in for
a public inquiry on the grounds that sufficient
detailed information about the serious risks to
health and safety has not been provided by the
applicant.
*DETAILS OF THE PLANNED FACILITY*
*Application details*
Application Number: 07/01686/COMIND
Address: Atomic Weapons Establishment, Burghfield
Reading, Berkshire, RG30 3RP
Applicant: MoD Estates Blandford House Aldershot
GU11 2HA Tel: 01252 361922
Proposal: New small-scale components manufacturing
facility, associated plant and landscaping.
Expiry Date for Standard Consultation: 09/11/07
For further details see
http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=07/01686/COMIND The new “small-scale manufacturing facility” will
prepare components for the “positioning and
sealing of other components”. This means that it
will manufacture components, which are used in the
refurbishment of the current warheads, which are
periodically returned from the warhead store at
Coulport in Scotland to Burghfield where they are
dismantled and rebuilt with new components
(expected to be in use until at least 2022).
The components will be produced in small batches,
and used periodically. (They include: Polyurethane
foams; polyurethane adhesives; silicone “potting”
compounds; ceramic components; synthetic rubbers
and metallic “blanks” or “spacers”. This suggests
that the facility will manufacture the non-fissile
components of a warhead.
See also:
AWPC:
http://www.aldermaston.net/ Block the Builders:
http://www.blockthebuilders.org.uk/index.php Trident Ploughshares:
http://www.tridentploughshares.org/index.php3 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament:
http://www.cnduk.org/ Latest news articles:
http://www.banthebomb.org/blog/index.php 
Homepage: