Public Safety Issues for Local Authorities

1

• Public Safety Issues for Local Authorities
• Kevin Holyer

2
Some Thoughts

• We are where we are!
• Concerns must be focused on risk minimization
• Challenge is how do LAs seek engagement by
  Government/regulators with communities we
  represent

3
Background to Readings Involvement with AWE

• Widespread calls for an independent inquiry into
  health and safety at AWE, Aldermaston
• Pochin 78 HS below acceptable standards
  monitoring process/staff shortages/unsafe
  buildings
• Late 92/early 93 Greenpeace recommended an
  independent inquiry in its report "Aldermaston -
  inside the citadel"
• March 93, Newbury District Council ask Government
  to set up independent inquiry into health and
  safety at AWE
• June 93, Reading Borough Council ask Government
  to set up independent inquiry into health and
  safety at AWE (all party support)
• July 93, Commons Defence Committee criticised
  Ministry of Defence for "failing to reassure
  public and staff on safety" and call for an
  independent inquiry into safety
• December 93, Reading Borough Council resolve to
  set up a community inquiry with the following
  terms of reference

4
Community InquiryTerms of Reference

• To hear and evaluate the views and concerns of
  persons, groups or organisations regarding any
  immediate or future risks or threats in the wider
  area surrounding AWE and the environment, whether
  from routine operations or accidental effects,
  and to advise on how such views and concerns may
  be addressed.

5
Mains Issues Concerning Reading

• AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield 5 and 9 miles
  from Reading centre
• Any serious incident such as a fire or explosion
  could have implications for the environment of
  the town
• Likewise contamination could affect rivers of the
  town
• Whether there is any possible linkage with
  cancers and/or leukaemia clusters and the
  elevated incidence of disease with children in
  the locality
• General concern about the well-being of the
  workforce, many of which are Reading residents
• The movement and transportation of radioactive
  material through Reading

6
Legal Constraints

• Section 137 Local Government Act 1972, a Local
  Authority can undertake activities and incur
  expenditure which is in the interest of the area
  or inhabitants of the area and of direct benefit
  to them.

7
A brief summary of the Inquiry

• Held over 2 days April 1994 in Council Chamber
• Independent and respected Chair Helena Kennedy
• Inquiry to be non adversarial
• Reading played role as facilitator
• Emphasis on the councils responsibility to the
  local community for health, safety and the
  environment
• Over 70 submissions from broad cross section of
  groups and individuals
• AWE, HSE, MoD invited
• Extensive local/national radio, television and
  newspaper coverage

8
Chart showing breakdown of Origin of Submissions
9
Water at risk from atom pipe
AWE Make us feel safe
AWE - potential threat or nothing to worry about?
Now the public speak out
Accident on last day of inquiry
No advice issued on emergency procedure
Demand for public inquiry
Inquiry puts spotlight on secrecy at A-base
Concern over waste storage
MP backs investigation
Calls for public inquiry into Berks bomb bases
Two workers contaminated
LOCAL and NATIONAL HEADLINES Reading Community
Inquiry April 1994
10
Demand for cancer study expansion
Schools concern after three die from cancer
Fears fuelled by lack of information
Calls for end to secrecy
The nuclear secrets on our roads
QC seeks inquiry into nuclear facility
LOCAL and NATIONAL HEADLINES Reading Community
Inquiry April 1994
11
Innovative use of Community Inquiry

• First of its kind in the country
• Described by Radio 4's Today Programme, as a
  unique concept- forerunner to citizen jury
• As the Facilitator, the Council provided the
  local community with a platform from which to
  make their voice heard.
• Helena Kennedy, QC, chaired the Inquiry providing
  an independent report and conclusions.

12
Secrecy verses Safety

• The findings of the AWE Aldermaston Community
  Inquiry
• Helena Kennedy QC

13
Response to the Community Inquiry

• Groups and individuals
• Publicity and media
• Other local authorities
• MPs Parliamentary motion urging Government to
  act on Helena Kennedy QC recommendations
• Government/MoD response inappropriate for
  Government to agree independent inquiry until HSE
  response publicised
• Readings response
• - established local forum (NAG)
• - requested more openness and representation on
  AWE Local Liaison Committee
• - endorsed motion in the House of Commons
• - pressure from Reading MP for public inquiry

14
HSE Report on AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield
October 1994

• Confined to HS at AWE
• A total of 65 recommendations had to be made, 19
  of these were of priority and 46 non-priority
• Of the priority recommendations some were urgent
  and necessitated immediate action
• HS standards did not match those found elsewhere
  in the nuclear industry
• Removal of AWEs exemption from licensing under
  Nuclear Instructions Act 1965 would provide
  useful controls (licence exemptions removed in
  1997

15
Lessons Learnt Using the Community inquiry
principle elsewhere

• be sure of strong community support - all party
  political consensus adds weight to the inquiry
  too
• clarify terms of reference so that there can be
  no misunderstanding of the aims and objectives
• encourage a broad cross-section of views and make
  the inquiry non-adversarial to make local people
  feel more comfortable about taking part
• appoint an independent and respected person as
  chair whose conclusions will command the respect
  and credibility they deserve
• prepare for the end of the inquiry and the
  publication of results what happens next?

16
Local Authority Problems

• Have variable credibility with their local
  communities
• Have minimal credibility with certain parts of
  the Government (eg MOD)
• Have difficulty in speaking with one voice on
  these issues
• Often find themselves in a double bind (eg anti
  nuclear but pro economic development)

17
Local Authority Opportunities

• Greater credibility with people than central
  government
• Local politicians trusted more than national
  Government Reps
• LAs can assess and mobilise local opinion far
  quicker than national Government
• LA can use powers under LA2004 (social, economic
  and environmental wellbeing etc to fund action to
  protect their communities
• LAs can use Civic Stewardship/Public Advocacy
  role to hold Government and Regulators to account

18
The Future?

• Approach must be one of genuine public and
  stakeholder engagement
• Public safety/risk minimisation only achieved if
  optimum transparency is achieved in the way we
  site, manage, deploy and decommission our nuclear
  facilities
• Right to expect that those appointed to regulate
  such facilities are truly independent and open to
  scrutiny and public accountability

19
The Future?

• Impending report from the Committee on
  Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) on what to
  do with radioactive waste/and how to engage with
  the public and other stakeholders
• The work of the LGAs Special Interest Group
  NuLeAF (Nuclear Legacies Advisory Forum) should
  help guide engagement processes
• Need to look outside of National borders for
  examples of good practice of engagement

20
Final Thought

• Public safety is best pursued through public
  pressure, and public pressure is best led by
  local government!

21

• When faced with the kind of resistance we met
  from AWE and the Ministry of Defence to produce
  answers to the basic questions that we and local
  people were asking, the overwhelming feeling is
  one of powerlessness.
• As a local authority we have a duty to our local
  community to help them get answers to their
  concerns and find ways of addressing the issues
  that concern them.
• John Cook April 1994
• Chair of Health and Environment Committee