This week will see the 60th
anniversary of the opening of the Calder Hall nuclear production facility at
Sellafield on 17 October 1956.
Calder Hall opened by the young Queen
Elizabeth on 17 October 1956, but it was never a “commercial” civil nuclear
plant. Her script writer penned the following for Her Majesty to say from the
podium: “This new
power, which has proved itself to be such a terrifying weapon of destruction,
is harnessed for the first time for the common good of our community."
It was
hailed as an "epoch-making" event by then Lord Privy Seal, Richard
Butler. It was, however, a gross deception of the public
In fact it was clearly
stated at the time of the plant’s opening, in a remarkable little book entitled
Calder Hall: The Story of Britain’s First Atomic Power Station, written
by Kenneth Jay, and published in October 1956 by the Government’s Atomic Energy
Research Establishment at Harwell to mark Calder’s commissioning. Mr Jay
wrote:
“Major plants built for
military purposes such as Calder Hall are being used as prototypes for civil
plants . . . the plant has been designed as a dual-purpose plant to produce
plutonium for military purposes as well as electric power . . . it would be
wrong to pretend that the civil programme has not benefitted from, and is not
to some extent dependent upon, the military programme."
An atomic
"clock" registered the first generated nuclear power
Calder Hall was closed in March 2003, fifty
years after its construction bagan. Interestingly, the first – nominally
commercial - reactor at Hinkley, the Magnox ‘A’ plant, was operated for
military production purposes too.
The first public hint came with a public
announcement on 17 June 1958 by the Ministry of Defence, notably not the
Ministry of Fuel and Power that oversaw the civilian nuclear programe - on:
“the production of plutonium
suitable for weapons in the new [nuclear ] power stations programme as an
insurance against future defence needs…” in the Hinkley
reactor. .
A week later in the UK Parliament, the
Conservative Cabinet minister Paymaster General, Reginald Maudling told MPs: “At the
request of the Government, the Central Electricity Generating Board has agreed
to a small modification in the design of Hinkley Point and of the next two
stations in its programme so as to enable plutonium suitable for military
purposes to be extracted should the need arise.
The
Government made this request in order to provide the country, at comparatively
small cost, with a most valuable insurance against possible future defence
requirements. The cost of providing such insurance by any other means would be
extremely heavy.”
The first nuclear power plant on the Hinkley Point site
in Somerset was built in the 1960s.
This was
challenged by Mr Mason, who asked:
“Is the Paymaster-General aware that, as far as I
am concerned, it is a disgusting imposition on what was primarily termed a
peaceful programme in nuclear energy? Of course, I am pleased to hear that it does not interfere with the
atomic energy programme prepared by the Government—although I accept that with
some measure of reservation? Was this really necessary, in view of the fact
that we are producing, perhaps at a slow rate, plutonium from our
present]—although we are producing plutonium from our present….Particularly
having regard to the fact that the Dounreay atomic breeder is coming into
production very soon, was this imposition on our peaceful atomic power
programme really necessary?
The
minister retorted:
“The hon. Gentleman says that it
is an imposition. The only imposition on the country would have arisen if the
Government had met our defence requirements for plutonium by means far more
expensive than those proposed in this suggestion.”
The headline story in the Bridgwater Mercury, serving the community
around Hinkley, on that day (24 June} was:
“MILITARY PLUTONIUM To be manufactured at
Hinkley”
The article explained:
“An ingenious method has
been designed for changing the
plant without reducing the output of
electricity…”
CND was reported to be critical, describing
this as a “distressing step” insisting
“The Government is obsessed with a nuclear militarism
which seems insane.”
Sadly, with the blinkered push to replace
Trident today, not much seems has changed in the 58 years since!
The
left wing Tribune magazine of 27 June
1958 was very critical of the deal under the headline
‘Sabotage in the Atom Stations’:
“For
the sake of making more nuclear weapons, the Government has
dealt a heavy blow at the development of atomic power stations.
And
warned:
“Unless
this disastrous decision is reversed, we shall
pay dearly in more ways than
one for the sacrifice made on the
grim alter of the H-bomb.”
The
late Michael Foot, that great inveterate peace-monger, who later became Labour
leader, was then the Tribune editor.
Then,
on 3 July 1958, the United Kingdom and United States signed a detailed
agreement on co-operation on nuclear weapons development, after several months
of Congressional hearings in Washington DC, but no oversight
whatsoever in the UK Parliament! As this
this formed the basis, within a mere
five years, for the UK obtaining the
Polaris nuclear WMD system from the UK, and some 20 odd years later for the
UK to buy American Trident nuclear WMDs , the failure of Parliament
to at least appraise the security merits of this key bilateral
atomic arrangement was unconscionable.
A
month later Mr Maudling told backbencher Alan Green MP in Parliament that:
“Three
nuclear power stations are being modified, but whether they will ever be used
to produce military grade plutonium will be for decision later and will depend
on defence requirements. The first two stations, at Bradwell and Berkeley, are
not being modified and the decision to modify three subsequent stations was
taken solely as a precaution for defence purposes.”
adding
“It in no
way reflects any change in the assessment of the economics of the British
nuclear power stations, and there is therefore no reason whatever why the sale
abroad of British nuclear equipment should be in any way affected.”
Following further detailed negotiations, the
Ango-American Mutual Defense Agreement
on Atomic Energy matters (defence is
spelled with an “s” even in the UK version of the Treaty, demonstrating the
origin of the drafts!) , to give it its full treaty title, was amended on 7 May 1959, to permit the exchange of nuclear explosive material including plutonium and enriched uranium for military
purposes.
The Times’ science
correspondent wrote on 8 May 1959 under
the headline
‘Production of Weapons at Short Notice’
“The most important technical fact
behind the agreement is that of civil grade -
such as will be produced in British civil 
nuclear power stations- can now be used in weapons…”
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1959-05-08-12-010&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1959-05-08-12)
Within a
month, Mr Maudling in Parliament told Tory back bencher, Wing Commander Eric
Bullus who had asked the
Paymaster-General what change there has been in the intention to modify three
nuclear power stations to enable plutonium suitable for military use to be
extracted should the need arise.
“Last year Her Majesty's
Government asked the Central Electricity Generating Board to make a small
modification in the design of certain power stations to enable plutonium
suitable for military purposes to be extracted if need should arise. Having
taken into account recent developments, including the latest agreement with the
United States, and having re-assessed the fissile material which will become
available for military purposes from all sources, it has been decided to restrict the modifications to one power station,
namely, Hinkley Point.” (emphasis added)
(HC Deb
22 June 1959 vol 607 cc847-9; This was challenged by Mr Mason, who asked:
“Is the Paymaster-General aware that, as far as I
am concerned, it is a disgusting imposition on what was primarily termed a
peaceful programme in nuclear energy? Of course, I am pleased to hear that it does not interfere with the
atomic energy programme prepared by the Government—although I accept that with
some measure of reservation? Was this really necessary, in view of the fact
that we are producing, perhaps at a slow rate, plutonium from our
present]—although we are producing plutonium from our present….Particularly
having regard to the fact that the Dounreay atomic breeder is coming into
production very soon, was this imposition on our peaceful atomic power
programme really necessary?
The
minister retorted:
“The hon.
Gentleman says that it is an imposition. The only imposition on the country
would have arisen if the Government had met our defence requirements for plutonium
by means far more expensive than those proposed in this suggestion.”
The headline story in the Bridgwater Mercury, serving the
community around Hinkley, on that day (24 June} was:
“MILITARY PLUTONIUM To be manufactured at
Hinkley”
The article explained:
“An ingenious method has
been designed for changing the
plant without reducing the output of
electricity…”
CND was reported to be critical, describing
this as a “distressing step” insisting
“The Government is obsessed with a nuclear militarism
which seems insane.”
Sadly, with the blinkered push to replace
Trident today, not much seems has changed in the 58 years since!
The
left wing Tribune magazine of 27 June
1958 was very critical of the deal under the headline ‘Sabotage in the Atom
Stations’:
“For
the sake of making more nuclear weapons, the Government has
dealt a heavy blow at the development of atomic power stations.
And
warned:
“Unless
this disastrous decision is reversed, we shall
pay dearly in more ways than
one for the sacrifice made on the
grim alter of the H-bomb.”
The
late Michael Foot, that great inveterate peace-monger, who later became Labour
leader, was then the Tribune editor.
Then,
on 3 July 1958, the United Kingdom and United States signed a detailed
agreement on co-operation on nuclear weapons development, after several months
of Congressional hearings in Washington DC, but no oversight
whatsoever in the UK Parliament! As this
this formed the basis, within a mere
five years, for the UK obtaining the
Polaris nuclear WMD system from the UK, and some 20 odd years later for the
UK to buy American Trident nuclear WMDs , the failure of Parliament
to at least appraise the security merits of this key bilateral
atomic arrangement was unconscionable.
A
month later Mr Maudling told backbencher Alan Green MP in Parliament that:
“Three
nuclear power stations are being modified, but whether they will ever be used
to produce military grade plutonium will be for decision later and will depend
on defence requirements. The first two stations, at Bradwell and Berkeley, are
not being modified and the decision to modify three subsequent stations was
taken solely as a precaution for defence purposes.”
adding
“It in no
way reflects any change in the assessment of the economics of the British
nuclear power stations, and there is therefore no reason whatever why the sale
abroad of British nuclear equipment should be in any way affected.”
Following further detailed negotiations, the
Ango-American Mutual Defense Agreement
on Atomic Energy matters (defence is
spelled with an “s” even in the UK version of the Treaty, demonstrating the
origin of the drafts!) , to give it its full treaty title, was amended on 7 May 1959, to permit the exchange of nuclear explosive material including plutonium and enriched uranium for military
purposes.
The Times’ science
correspondent wrote on 8 May 1959 under
the headline
‘Production
of Weapons at Short Notice’
“The most important technical fact
behind the agreement is that of civil grade -
such as will be produced in British civil nuclear power stations- can now be used in weapons…”
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1959-05-08-12-010&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1959-05-08-12)
Within a
month, Mr Maudling in Parliament told Tory back bencher, Wing Commander Eric
Bullus who had asked the Paymaster-General what change there has been in the
intention to modify three nuclear power stations to enable plutonium suitable
for military use to be extracted should the need arise.
“Last
year Her Majesty's Government asked the Central Electricity Generating Board to
make a small modification in the design of certain power stations to enable
plutonium suitable for military purposes to be extracted if need should arise.
Having taken into account recent developments, including the latest agreement
with the United States, and having re-assessed the fissile material which will
become available for military purposes from all sources, it has been decided to restrict the modifications to one power station,
namely, Hinkley Point.” (emphasis added)
And so it
may be seen that the UK’s first civil nuclear programme was used as a source of nuclear
explosive plutonium for the US
military, with Hinkley Point A the prime provider.
Two decades later, Wales national
daily, the Western Mail, on 8 October 1984
reported that the largest Magnox reactor
in the UK, at Wylfa on Anglesey, had also been used to provide plutonium for the military.
Plutonium from both reactors went into the UK military stockpile of nuclear
explosives, and could well still be part of the UK Trident warhead stockpile
today.
Subsequent
research by the Scientists Against Nuclear Arms, published in the prestigious
science weekly journal, Nature and
presented to the Sizewell B Public Inquiry
in 1983-4 and Hinkley C Public
Inquiry in 1989, has demonstrated
that around 6700 kilogrammes of
plutonium, was shipped to the United States under the military exchange
agreement, which stipulates explicitly that the material must be used for military purposes by the
recipient county.
To put
this quantity into context, a nuclear warhead
contains around 5 kilos of plutonium so this is a very significant
quantity
Earlier
this month, a commentary article by Oxford University academic, Dr Peter Wynn
Kirby, in The New York Times ( “Britain’s Nuclear Cover-Up,” October 11, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/opinion/britains-nuclear-cover-up.html?_r=1) discussed the possibility that the first newbuild
nuclear reactor to be built in 20 years in the UK, at Hinkley C, also has
military links, this time not to nuclear explosives production, but to nuclear
reactor propulsion.
As Dr Kirby
states: “A painstaking [100-page] study of obscure British military policy documents, released last month by the
Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, demonstrates that the
government and some of its partners in the defense industry, like Rolls-Royce
and BAE Systems, think a robust civilian nuclear industry is essential to
revamping Britain’s nuclear submarine program.” (https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2016-16-swps-cox-et-al.pdf&site=25)
Nuclear
deception has a long and undistinguished history: it seems we have come full
circle 60 years after the birth of
nuclear power as the Siamese twin of military nuclear technology six decades
after Calder Hall’s opening.
