Tricky Nuclear Joke on Beautiful Copeland...

http://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/the-jokes-on-copeland/


At the meeting last wednesday of Copeland Borough Council the nuclear dump
was 'discussed.' Questions from the public have to be registered days
beforehand in order for pat answers to be provided. I'd registered
early on my own behalf as a wildlife artist but we arrived 5 minutes late
and I was initially refused the right to speak by Elaine Woodburn, leader
of the Borough Council and Moorcide nuclear plant cheerleader. Luckily the
democratic services officer stepped in so I spoke after the newly formed
nukiller dump cheerleaders, The Sellafield Workers Campaign.

Here are the questions asked (image)

Elaine Woodburn agreed with the Sellafield Workers Campaign that people
opposing the dump have never shown the slightest interest in the future of
Copeland. This is insulting puerile rubbish. One of the public questions
was from Gareth Harrison of Seascale, a self employed artist and
photographer who has also worked for Sellafield who said "I and many
others have a view of our area that extends beyond the nuclear sphere. I
ask OUR councillors to consider the bigger picture also. West Cumbria is a
unique and beautiful area that does not need or deserve the proposed
repository. Please do not assume that we all want this process to be
imposed upon us"

Councillor Woodburn objected to the use of the word "dump" in my question.
I replied that as outlined in the MRWS's own literature it is not a case
of if but when this 'repository' leaks which by definition makes it a
dump.

There was a lot of reference to the (dodgy) Ipsos Mori poll showing how
willing the community is and to community benefits. The fact that most
communities have voted against the dump and therefore the community
benefits are meaningless was not referred to.

Three councillors opposed going forward while the rest who spoke were in
favour and did a lot of kowtowing to the Sellafield workforce who cheered
Councillor John Kane when he said " I have no control over my Parkinson's
disease but I worked in the nuclear industry and I do have control over
the nuclear industry. We have regulators and we trust in them!" The blind
faith of some Sellafield workers is breathtaking. Do they not realise that
the regulators are merely there to tick the boxes of government policy no
matter how dangerous it is, from new laws to "exempt" radioactive waste so
it can be dumped in landfill, to increasing the levels at which emissions
of antimony and other nasty stuff can be released due to increased
reprocessing etc. The regulators are toothless watchdogs. The Environment
Agency has said as much to Radiation Free Lakeland when we urged them to
take action over the dumping of nuclear waste in landfill "the new laws
allow it." We can be sure if this dump is allowed to go ahead new laws
will accommodate the explosion in radiation dose to the public.

The Sellafield Workers Campaign and some councillors referred to their
pride in the economic benefits of the nuclear industry and that this
decision should be taken by Copeland and others should keep their neb out.
The inconvenient truth is that nuclear is not and never has been an
authentic wealth generating industry. It is an illusion. All the jobs at
Sellafield are paid for by the taxpayer. Private Companies out for the
bottom line rather than safety are paid for with government cheques. In
all the nuclear largesse of everything from new sports halls to festivals
and wining and dining of the Councillors, the fact that the taxpayer is
footing the bill seems to get lost. Ultimately we are being bribed and
literally poisoned with our own money. Neat trick!

The Sellafield Unions could do with taking a leaf out of the more
progressive stance of other unions worldwide who are looking to protect
their workforce and the public.
http://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/electrical-trades-union-bans-members.html

The ten most radioactive places on earth

http://brainz.org/ten-most-radioactive-places-earth/

MANAGING RADIOACTIVE WASTES SAFELY HALLOWEEN SPECIAL

The Scariest Halloween Story is the one where the nasties appear as respectable types who say "Don't Worry Everything is OK!" The viewer has a hunch that there will be an inevitable doom laden slide to a scary
ending.

With nice timing for the scary Halloween season the Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership have produced a draft consultation document which will be used to continue promoting the "steps towards geological disposal" of high level nuclear wastes in Cumbria's leaky geology.

The document which will be discussed in Egremont this thursday says:

"We wanted to be 'confident in the integrity of the BGS (British Geological Society) screening work/report'.

Our initial opinions are:

BGS study. We are confident in the integrity of the BGS screening report because it has been endorsed by two independent reviewers and there is no significant criticism of the study's integrity from elsewhere".

http://www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk/meetings_more.asp?news_id=30

Really? "No significant Criticism" ?

What about the significant criticism from:

The Nirex Inspector
http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/news-and-events/news/nirex-inquiry-inspector-attacks-nda/

Members of the original Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/news-and-events/news/letter-from-corwm-members-on-new-build-waste/

Dr Helen Wallace- author of the Rock Solid? Scientific review
http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/1052

Dr Rachel Western - former employee of Nirex- researcher for Cumbrian

Friends of the Earth groups
http://northern-indymedia.org/articles/943

Professor David Smythe - former employee of Nirex
http://www.davidsmythe.org/nuclear/nuclear.htm

Tim Farron MP

http://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/great-pyramids-spoil-heaps-in-cumbria/



There are many more significant criticisms!


http://101-uses-for-a-nuclear-power-station.blogspot.com/2011/10/mrws-halloween-special.html

The good news is that unlike the viewer or reader of a scary Halloween

story, Cumbria has the wherewithal to stop the slide into the unfathomable

void.

Nuclear Waste and the Green Party

Well at least the Green Party care what happens to our nuclear waste.
They may not have a solution to the nuclear waste problem, but then who has? There is no satisfactory solution. But clearly burying it underground, out of site, out of mind, is not the right thing to do. Geologists have already carried out surveys in Cumbria and come to the conclusion that nuclear waste buried there would leak radioactivity out into the ground water. The current government has decided to ignore geological reports and push ahead with deep geological disposal.

But the Green Party proposed at their Autumn Conference:

"We call on policy committee to develop a policy on legacy high and intermediate level radioactive waste in time for Spring Conference 2012. The policy to be based on best environmental practice, not political expediency We also call on Conference to support Allerdale and Copeland Green Party and other local groups, including West Cumbria Friends of the Earth, Radiation Free Lakeland, and CORE in their work to oppose the deep geological disposal plans and to call for alternative disposal methods to be revisited. In particular lobbying local authorities not to proceed to the next stage of the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS)process (January 2012), at which stage the right of withdrawal would be severely compromised proposed"

More Power to the Green Party

Geological disposal of radioactive waste

PR STUNT - "Geology Seminar"

Friday, 24 June 2011

The best PR stunts are dressed up in expensive suits and paid for by the taxpayer. Monday's "geology seminar" at Whitehaven was a brilliant example of nasty spin from a government who wants new nukes and desperately needs to be seen to have 'solved' the nuclear waste problem.

Some have called for "more debate" but even if Cumbria's geology was perfect rather than leaky there are over 100 reasons why dumping high level nuclear waste in the ground is guaranteed to poison the land and us.

Here are just a few examples:

Repository is designed to be leaky
Rusting of the steel in the dump will create huge amounts of hydrogen which will have to be released undermining the so called "multi- barrier" system meant to protect people from leakage. (issues 14 and 15)

Digging underground will create fast pathways for leaks Rock would inevitably be damaged by digging to create huge caverns. The danger caused by this "excavation damage zone" is not understood. ( issue 27)

New data shows copper will corrode faster than assumed The NDA refer to a wall thickness of 5cm for the copper canisters holding high level wastes. Recent research shows that to achieve durability a wall thickness of one metre would be needed! (issue 39)

Nuclear Explosions in the Repository
The probability and impact of a "criticality" or mini nuclear explosion is not understood. ( issue 79)

NOTE- Issues Register from Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates Summary ( 10 pages)

http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/uploads/11953NWAAISSUESREGISTER%5BVersion1.1%5D.pdf

Commentary (30 pages)

http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/uploads/11952NWAA%20ISSUES%20REGISTER%20COMMENTARY%20letterhead.doc

Pro Nuclear Bishop

ACT OF FAITH


Carlisle Cathedral is built to inspire awe. Last time Marriane went there was Chernobyl Day to ask Bishop Newcome (aka Nuke'm) for a rethink on his outspoken support for new build and a deep nuclear dump in Cumbria. A few supporters of a radiation free lakeland went in to the Cathedral.

When she opened her mouth to deliver a brilliant speech to the Bishop's right hand man, a tiny mouse squeak came out "please give this important letter to the Bishop etc.."

As soon as she got out of the Cathedral her voice was back to normal! Thats not important but what is important is that the Bishop has now replied to her letter saying:

I am not prepared at this stage to withdraw my support for new build and geological disposal.

That Angel of Light sat above Carlisle Cathedral must be laughing his fiery socks off! How many more lives will be snuffed out before The Bishop "withdraws his support" ?

No Nuke Dump Under Forests at Whinlatter

Published: February 17, 2011 10:34 by marianne

This Saturday from 1-3pm  there is a Rally at Whinlatter to Save the Forest.  It's heartening that celebrities and NGOs have tripped over each other to line up to save the forests from  government sell off.
Hearbreaking that there are no national NGOs and No celebrities lining up to encourage people to save the forests from having a high level nuke dump under them.

Where are Melvyn Bragg, Eric Robson, Chris Bonnington when you need them!!!

The proposed forest sell off is an excellent way for people to quite rightly get all steamed up under a banner that people feel comfortable with, while meanwhile.....

.....Allerdale  Borough Council have "expressed an interest" in a high level waste nuke dump in their area  - this  includes the area of Whinlatter.

Research shows that leaking low level nuclear dumps lead to foliage above the ground transpiring radioactive carbon and tritium.  What is proposed is a high level dump (or two) and the lakes geology is wonderfully
leaky!!!

Campaigners working are all local volunteers - worryingly big NGO's have no concerted campaign on this.

We will be at Whinlatter with the NO NUKE DUMP petition - will have a banner and will be painting some red squirrels and have charcoals for people to do their own drawings.

ps:remember the Rusland Beeches campaign 15 years ago? No celebs lined to help - they were interested in helping ...-until being told that the trees were owned by the Lake District National Park with Friends of the Lake District, Cumbria Wildlife Trust and others all supporting the National Park proposal for clearfelling -  ........the trees are still standing!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWeuirFumZs Links:

 NO CUMBRIA NUKE DUMP PETITION  Contact email: rafl@mariannebirkby.plus.com

https://northern-indymedia.org/articles/1384

Earthquake in Cumbria

Following last nights earthquake in Cumbria - just one of the increasingly frequent earthquakes to hit this area, our Cumbrian councillors should think again about their support for new nuclear build and the geological disposal of high level nuclear wastes. Earthquakes and nuclear power are not happy bedfellows with the need to retain radioactive releases compromised in unpredictable ways.

Even if this region had experienced no earthquakes at all, the Nirex inquiry of 1995 found the whole region to be too geologically unpredictable for the 'disposal' of high level nuclear wastes.

The following is an extract from an email sent by Professor David Smythe (employed by Nirex in 1995) to Allerdale and Copeland Borough Council which describes Nirex's remit- which was to explore the whole of West Cumbria.

"The REGION studied extends from north of Workington to south of Barrow, inland to Ulverston and halfway to Keswick, and offshore northwest and southwest for between 15 and 50 km. The DISTRICT is defined as Whitehaven down to Ravenglass, inland about 10 km, and offshore about the same distance".


Extract from recent email to Allerdale and Copeland Borough Council from Prof David Smythe

"Maps presented by Dr Robert Chaplow of Nirex to the Planning Inquiry in 1995, defining the scope of the £400M Nirex investigations. The site selection supposedly homed in, like opening up a set of
Russian matryochka dolls, as follows:

The REGION studied extends from north of Workington to south of Barrow, inland to Ulverston and halfway to Keswick, and offshore northwest and southwest for between 15 and 50 km.

The DISTRICT is defined as Whitehaven down to Ravenglass, inland about 10 km, and offshore about the same distance.

The SITE is a rectangle of about 55 sq km centred on Longlands Farm, including the Sellafield Works, Seascale and Gosforth. The POTENTIAL REPOSITORY ZONE comprises the 2 sq km or so of Longlands Farm.

So when the Planning Inspector deems the REGION to be unsuitable, he evidently means, using Nirex's own definition, the whole of West Cumbria, not just the PRZ. Since Longlands Farm was presented as the best site within the whole REGION, and £400M was spent in support, the bad science is in seeking to return to the REGION and waste yet more public money".

Professor David Smythe

The government isn’t telling us the true cost of nuclear waste disposal

Dr Paul Dorfman
13th December, 2010

UK plans for ten new nuclear power plants will create £80 billion worth of radioactive waste that we still have no secure way of disposing

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the nuclear industry have a plan for 10 new ‘Generation 3’ reactors, each one containing 2.5 times the radiological inventory of the UK’s biggest AGR reactor at Sizewell B. In a recent Ministerial statement, Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for DECC made it clear that the Coalition is not ruling out taking on unspecified nuclear ‘financial risks or liabilities’ to make this happen. Given the sheer weight of our current nuclear legacy, its' clear that this will also involve nuclear waste ‘financial risks or liabilities’.

The most recent estimates are that, once ‘packaged’, the UK already has around 1,420 cubic metres of hot high-level radioactive waste, 364,000 cubic metres of long lived intermediate-level radioactive waste, and 3,470,000 cubic metres of toxic low-level radioactive waste. The Government proposes to house the high and intermediate part of this vast inventory in a deep hole five times the size of the Albert Hall over millennia. Government officials estimate that the cost of managing this waste and decommissioning will be around £80 billion and rising – five years ago it was around £50 billion. There are no secure estimates for costing a deep disposal repository.

Waste will be five times more radioactive

And this is just what we have at the moment. Although the nuclear industry estimate that any new build radioactive waste would increase the problem by only 10 per cent in volume - they fail to mention that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has worked out that the radioactivity would increase by five times, which means that we would need 15 Albert Halls to house the waste.

Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich Business School, suggests that the liberalisation of the energy market in Europe has pressured the nuclear industry to become more competitive. The industry realised that a decrease in cost could be achieved if the reactor’s power could be increased, and this could happen by using more enriched uranium as reactor fuel. The logic is that this ‘super-charged’ fuel will be left in the reactor for longer in order to provide, as Jeremy Clarkson might say, ‘more power’.

Unfortunately, the Law of Unintended Consequences also means that this ‘high burn-up’ spent fuel is twice as radioactive than conventional spent fuel, and the reactor operations will have a much tighter safety margin. This is because high burn-up fuel is much hotter, much more radioactive, and performs very poorly when subject to ‘abnormal conditions’. John Large, an international consulting nuclear engineer, notes that ‘These risks persist through the nuclear cycle, as high burn-up fuel is liable to release a much higher content of its fission product inventory, known as the ‘immediate release fraction’, than fuel used in current reactors. And the situation isn’t being helped by the nuclear industries heroic safety claims: AREVA EdF’s ‘worst case’ estimate - including terrorist attack – insist that no more than 0.2 per cent of the reactor core content would be released during ‘open containment’ in ‘abnormal conditions’.

But surely things are better elsewhere? Well, not really. Although the deep geological concept is in the very early stage of testing in Finland and Sweden - in the US, Obama has withdrawn funding from the Yucca Mountain geological radioactive waste dump, saying that ‘After spending billions of dollars on the Yucca Mountain Project, there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there’. In Japan and Germany, proposals for deep disposal facilities have encountered strong opposition, and in France, 15 years of research on deep underground burial has proved ‘inconclusive’.
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/691982/the_government_isnt_telling_us_the_true_cost_of_nuclear_waste_disposal.html

Greenpeace delivers radioactive waste to the door of the European Parliament

Greenpeace delivered radioactive waste to the door of the European Parliament today to remind MEPs in their last plenary session before considering a new nuclear waste law that there is no solution to nuclear waste. Two qualified Greenpeace radiation specialists delivered four radioactive samples in two concrete and lead-lined containers to Parliament’s twin entrances on Rue Wiertz. Dozens of trained Greenpeace volunteers zoned off areas with tape before handcuffing themselves in rings around the containers to ensure their safety. MEPs and staff looked on as Greenpeace climbers scaled 16 nearby flagpoles to hold out banners reading ‘Nuclear waste, no solution’ below the flags of those countries with nuclear energy programmes producing the largest amounts of nuclear waste.

Greenpeace European Unit 7th Oct 2010
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/greenpeace-takes-radioactive-w

Business Week 7th Oct 2010
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9IMQ9QG0.htm

An international scandal came to the steps of the European Parliament today as Greenpeace delivered four consignments of nuclear waste to MEPs. The waste is harmful and exceeds European environmental limits.
It and other more harmful radioactive wastes produced by Europe’s nuclear reactors will pose a deadly threat to its citizens and environment for hundreds of thousands of years to come. A solution to this problem has evaded scientists ever since the invention of nuclear power 60 years ago. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of high-level nuclear waste litter the globe and yet we are no nearer to properly safeguarding it to protect ourselves and future generations.

Greenpeace Nuclear Reaction 7th Oct 2010
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/nuclear-scandal-comes-to-the-european-parliam/blog/26595

High Level Nuke Dump Opposition


Who in their right mind would oppose "Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely" ?

The cleverly (Orwellian) titled: Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership is designed to stifle any opposition to thegeological 'disposal' of high level nuclear waste.

A Pictorial View of the Lakes Nuclear Sacrifice Zone - from Coniston Old Man


Radiation Free Lakeland are based in South Lakeland on the border with Lancashire and regularly witness radioactive wastes enroute to Sellafield past the RSPB's Leighton Moss reserve, across the Morecambe Bay viaduct on the one side and through Greyrigg on the other.

The 'Partnership' process is aimed solely at steering 'volunteer' communities into the acceptance of deep disposal of high level nuclear wastes. The safer option of above ground and retrievable waste management is not even on the agenda. If the 'volunteer' process fails then the government "will look at other options" to force 'disposal', [DECC – NewBuild RadWaste Summary (Nov ’09) – para 106 page 23 ]

We take this to mean forcing an underground high level nuclear dump (or more than one dump) on communities. The MRWS process is looking to include NewBuild wastes, and the pronuclear Department of Energy and Climate Change is desperate to give the appearance of having 'solved the problem of nuclear waste 'in order to go ahead with new build. In March of this year Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates identified over 100 problems with disposal, and a report published this month by Dr Helen Wallace, for Greenpeace International confirms that deep disposal of radioactive wastes has the “potential for significant radiological releases through a variety of mechanisms”.

Deep disposal of radioactive waste is not the best way to protect people from the dangers that these wastes present.

Radiation Free Lakeland have formally registered their firm commitment to an expression of opposition to the so called Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership which is doublespeak for Out of Sight Out of Mind- whatever the consequences.

Groups/communities should register their opposition to ensure a viable future for Cumbria and the North West.

letter to "Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership

Subject: Invitation to join Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership

From: mariannebirkby@mariannebirkby.plus.comDate: Sun, September 19, 2010 3:52 pm

To: "Rhuari Bennett"

Dear Rhuari, Very Many thanks for the formal invitation to Radiation Free Lakeland to join the MRWS Partnership. Yes we would very much like to be kept informed of activities of the Partnership but will decline membership for the following reasons. We are based in South Lakeland on the border with Lancashire and regularly witness radioactive wastes enroute to Sellafield past the RSPB's LeightonMoss reserve, across the Morecambe Bay viaduct on the one side and through Greyrigg on the other. We understand that your role in the Partnership is as facilitator 'to achieve an outcome' ( http://www.3kq.co.uk/#/the-3-the-k-and-the-q/4529763646).

The Partnership process is aimed solely at steering 'volunteer' communities into the acceptance of deep disposal of high level nuclear wastes rather than looking at the safer option of above ground and retrievable waste management. If the 'volunteer' process fails then the government "will look at other options", [DECC – NewBuild RadWaste Summary (Nov ’09) – para 106 page 23 ] We take this to mean forcing an underground nuclear dump (or more than one dump) on communities. The MRWS process is looking to include NewBuild wastes, and the pronuclear Department of Energy and Climate Change is desperate to give the appearance of having 'solved the problem of nuclear waste 'in order to go ahead with new build.

In March of this year Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates identified over 100 problems with disposal, and a report published this month by Dr Helen Wallace, for Greenpeace International (attached) confirms that deep disposal of radioactive wastes has the “potential for significant radiological releases through a variety of mechanisms”. Clearly deep disposal of radioactive waste is not the best way to protect people from the dangers that these wastes present.

We would therefore like to formally register Radiation Free Lakeland's firm commitment to an expression of opposition to the so called Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely Partnership which is doublespeak for Out of Sight Out of Mind- whatever the consequences.

yours sincerely, Marianne Birkby on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland

Old mine being used to dump nuclear waste whilst selling organic compost

This is not a joke....

A landfill site near Lillyhall in Cumbria is currently receiving 'high volume  low level' radioactive waste. 'High volume, low level' is a new classification of radio active waste, previously stored in a secure site a few miles away from Sellafield at Drigg.

Lake District National Park Authority, Murley Moss, Oxenholme Road, Kendal, Cumbria, LA9 7RL

http://www.nda.gov.uk/ukinventory/sites/LLW_Repository_near_Drigg/

There is no law stopping this new classification of 'high volume low level' radioactive waste going into landfill. Plastic bags of radioactive aspestsos from Chapel Cross nuclear reactor in Scotland are being transported to Lillyhall in Cumbria in open lorries. And the companies involved are now applying to the council to dump higher level radio active waste on top of it.

Recently, The Soil Asscociation have just banned WRG Ltd from calling their compost organic, though not because it comes off the same site as nuclear waste goes in!

http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_itemlistid=37&listcatid=273&listitemid=4527§ion=materials/composting

On the 25th of August the Cumbrian Council are meeting to discuss granting permission for another nuclear waste dump in an old coal mine at Keekle Head.

THIS THURSDAY Cumbria 'how would you like it Mr Multinational?' County council are meeting to discuss these proposals.

Soooo....
10am
THIS Thursday, July 29th
Boardroom, Lake District National Park Authority, Murley Moss, Oxenholme Road, Kendal, Cumbria, LA9 7RL

Show support for a viable future which means

- No Nuclear Waste in Landfill -

PS here is a film from 15 years ago - outside the National Park offices when they were very concerned about health and safety...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWeuirFumZs

Heres some more info...

RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN A LANDFILL NEAR YOU

A staggering 56,000m3 a year of radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear plants is planned for Keekle Head and Lillyhall in Cumbria. Local councillors have opposed - but radwaste is already coming to Lillyhall landfill from for example Magnox North at Chapelcross at the rate of 26000m3 a year.

Radiation Free Lakeland say : the nuclear industry is sticking two fingers up to Cumbria - while masquerading as "green" - there is an unfathomable void between nuclear power and the truth.

The Keekle Head planning meeting is scheduled to take place on 25th May in Kendal. This is a widely opposed proposal - even the pronuclear MP Jamie Reed has opposed the plan. -Radiation Free Lakeland will speak in opposition. GDF Suez Watch are also opposing. (Info below) BUT Lillyhall is already being polluted with Radwaste unbeknown to anyone it seems including the Council officers in charge of the license.

RAFL enquired if the Lillyhall application to recieve Radwaste was to be heard at the same time as Keekle Head - what was revealed is astounding and beyond satire-according to the County Council and Copeland officials under "present conditions" the operators of Lillyhall landfill site can bring in as much High Volume Very Low Level Radioactive Waste as they like.

They have "no need" to apply for permission to do this- the "present conditions" run out in 2014. We have had sight of the conditions of the Lillyhall license (below) and there is no mention of radioactive waste in any shape or form.

"Very Low Level Rad Waste" is a new classification - made to enable radioactive waste to be put into ordinary landfill. No other individual or company could get away with polluting in this way. In fact the laws applying to everyone apart from the nuclear industry have been tightened up "From July 2004, 'non-hazardous' sites have been only allowed to accept non-hazardous waste. The Directive has banned whole tyres from landfill since 2003, with this ban extending to shredded tyres from July 2006, while liquid wastes have been banned from landfill since October 2007.

The Directive also brings with it tighter site monitoring and engineering standards. This is supplemented by the new European Waste Catalogue, which has extended the range of materials classified as 'hazardous', and the Waste Acceptance Criteria, which has introduced stringent pre-treatment requirements".

At the last council meeting the councillors were horrified that ordinary landfill could be used for radwaste and voted to opposed it - .....but according to the council official Radiation Free Lakeland spoke to yesterday -"the Waste Recycling Group and Energy solutions who run Lillyhall do not 'need' planning permissions. While people go to the tip and dutifully reduce, reuse and recycle their waste to reduce the pressure on landfill- the nuclear industry is busy filling it up with radioactive waste to the tune of 26,000m3 a year.

The site is not monitered unless there are complaints - then there is one man - the council's monitering officer who would go and have a peek- so no one would be any the wiser as to exactly how radioactive/dangerous the waste is.

This document from Magnox North outlines the industry's wish list - which Goverment departments are falling over themselves to provide at the expense of our safety... "magnox north has a need to dispose of solid waste .....normally disposed by transfer to the LLWR .....LLWR has refused to accept the waste. It is now proposed to dispose of this waste to a specified landfill site" it goes on

"This can take up to 4 months from the date of recieving the application......there is usually another 28 days before you can start accumulating and disposing of radioactive waste" according to the council this is happening now at Lillyhall - there is no monitoring and there is "no need" for planning procedures - they can "take  as much as they want"

What ate we going to do with our nuclear waste?

EU adviser on nuclear policy Jan Haverkamp said: “The only way to address the problem of nuclear waste is to not produce it in the first place. Despite the decline of nuclear power over the last decade, the industry still creates more radioactive waste than it can deal with. It has tried dumping it in the sea, attempted storage in geological formations, and in copper and clay containers, but nothing has worked. It’s time to put an end to this madness.”


The European Commission is currently preparing a directive on nuclear waste that could make

European countries think twice before they add to the problem by building new nuclear power

plants. However, the legislation could also be exploited by the nuclear industry to attempt to

overcome the stumbling block of public opposition and give politicians a false sense of security

that could open the door to new projects. This briefing illustrates why for now – and for the next

hundreds of thousands of years – the nuclear waste problem is here to stay and why we should

stop wasting our time with nuclear power.

Timeline

April-May: public consultation on the nuclear waste directive:


http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/consultations/2010_05_31_fuel_waste_en.htm

July: Commission publishes draft proposal

Summer: first reading by the European Parliament

Autumn: Council debate

End of 2010 / early 2011: adoption of the directive



For over 50 years the nuclear industry has produced large volumes of hazardous radioactive

waste, not just from the operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plants, but also from

uranium mining and enrichment. Today, nuclear energy is being sold to politicians and

consumers as one of the solutions to climate change that will also deliver energy security for

Europe. However, nuclear energy is a dangerous obstacle on the road to a clean energy future.1

On top of other substantial problems related to safety and costs, nuclear waste remains a

major flaw of nuclear energy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates that the industry annually produces

one million barrels (200 000 m3) of what it considers ‘low and intermediate-level waste’ and

about 50 000 barrels (10 000 m3) of the even more dangerous ‘high-level waste’.2 These

numbers do not include spent nuclear fuel, which is also high-level waste.

It takes 240 000 years for radioactive plutonium to decay to a level that is safe for human

exposure, which is longer than modern humans have been on the Earth (200 000 years). There

is no way to guarantee to keep these substances safe for this long. It does not make sense to

allow the nuclear industry to continue producing more nuclear waste.

1 In its ‘Energy [R]evolution’ scenario, Greenpeace shows that renewables (like wind, solar, biomass, geo-thermal, tidal and

wave energy) and energy efficiency deliver faster, cheaper and cleaner solutions. Sven Teske, e.a., Energy [R]evolution –

A Sustainable Global Energy Outlook, Amsterdam (2008), Greenpeace/EREC,

www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/energyrevolutionreport

2 IAEA Factsheet: Managing Radioactive Waste, 1998, www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/manradwa.html

Greenpeace European Unit, vzw-asbl

Belliardstraat 199 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium

Tel.: +32 2 274 1900 Fax: +32 2 274 1910

european.unit@greenpeace.org www.greenpeace.eu

Ond.Nr./Num. D’entreprise: 0457563648

FAILED SOLUTIONS

Billions of euros have been spent over the past half-century on finding a solution to the nuclear

waste problem. Without success.

Russia, USA, France, UK, Netherlands, Japan and others – waste dumping at sea banned

For years, low level radioactive waste was dumped at sea, 'out of sight and out of mind'.

Disintegrating barrels brought the waste back into the environment, and dangerous substances

accumulated in the bodies of animals. After 15 years of campaigning by Greenpeace, in 1993 an

international treaty was signed banning all dumping of radioactive waste at sea.

USA – seismic fault line compromises bedrock storage

Construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada, USA, began in 1982. The US

Geological Survey has found a seismic fault line under the site and there are serious doubts about

the long-term movements of underground water that can transport deadly contamination into the

environment. As a result of these problems, the US government stopped funding the project in

early 2010.

Germany – Water floods salt layers solution

In Asse, Germany, an experimental radioactive waste dump was set up in the 1960s in salt

formations deep underground. It started leaking water in 1988 and is currently flooding with

12 000 litres of water per day. As a result, all 126 000 barrels of waste already placed in the dump

now need to be cleared out. Asse was meant as a pilot project for a final storage solution in the

salt layers under Gorleben, but there is now serious doubt in Germany about the viability of salt

layers as storage for nuclear waste.

France – Waste inventory unknown

One of the largest nuclear dumps in the world, the Centre de Stockage de La Manche (CSM) in

northern France, was opened in 1969 to store low level waste. It was closed in 1994. It currently

stores 520 000 m3 of radioactive materials from waste reprocessing (see below) and French

nuclear reactors. A 1996 commission set up by the French government concluded that the site

also contained long-living waste and higher level waste, and that the true inventory was effectively

unknown. In 2006 it was found that contaminated water from the site had been leaking into an

underground aquifer, threatening contamination of the surrounding agricultural land.

NEW RESEARCH BRINGS NEW CHALLENGES

Forsmark, Sweden – Olkiluoto, Finland: copper corrosion

Sweden is developing a system that places nuclear waste in a copper container surrounded by

clay. Water is expected to help the copper container harden when it is stored in rock like granite,

deep underground. Finland adopted the same system and Switzerland and the UK are considering

this option. But problems have already begun to appear. The copper canisters were expected to

survive corrosion for 3 000 years, but recent research shows that they might fail in 300 years.3

There are furthermore concerns about the build-up of hydrogen produced as a result. High

temperatures from the canisters could also affect the clay covering, while groundwater flows could

bring contaminants from any compromised containers into the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, studies

predict that Nordic countries are likely to face at least one ice age in the coming 100 000 years,4

which could change the pattern of the underground and ground water streams.

Bure, France – Dessel, Belgium: uncertainties of clay as a natural barrier

Unlike Sweden and Finland, that rely on man-made barriers to prevent leakage, France and

Belgium are exploring clay as a natural barrier. The waste is to be contained in simple stainless

steel canisters, which can corrode even more easily than the Swedish copper ones, and rely on

the natural clay formation to keep in radioactivity. The crucial question is whether it can be

guaranteed – for hundreds of thousands of years – that no cracks or channels will form in the clay

layers, which would cause water to leak in and out and poison nearby aquifers.

3 Hultquist, G. et al. (2009). Water Corrodes Copper. Catalysis Letters, Volume 132, Numbers 3-4.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10562-009-0113-x

4 Matti Saarnisto, Evaluation report on the Posiva report 2006-5 (2008), STUK (Finland's nuclear regulating agency).

Available on demand.

THE HUMAN RISK OF STORAGE

Human interference

Once placed into final storage, nuclear waste needs to be monitored and not only secured from

natural events, but also from human interference. Stored civilian and military nuclear waste, such

as plutonium or uranium, are the most accessible sources of radioactive material that can be used

for the production of nuclear bombs. A few kilograms of these substances would be sufficient to

make bombs similar to the ones used on Japan by the US military during World War II. Even a very

modest amount of radioactive material from these sites (around 20 grams) would be sufficient to

make a 'dirty bomb’, which could contaminate several square kilometers. To deal with the

problem, the nuclear industry proposes to guard storage sites for 300 years. But there is no

proposal to ensure security for the other 239,700 years.

Interim storage: leakage and terrorist risk

Some countries, like the Netherlands, have set up interim storage for 100 years, effectively shifting

the problem of final storage to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. In the meantime,

leakages and accidents need to be prevented. An additional risk is terrorism: an attack on an

interim nuclear waste storage site would be a relatively soft target for terrorists.

Reprocessing – the myths of the ‘nuclear cycle’

The nuclear industry talks about the 'nuclear fuel cycle' and claims that after use, nuclear fuel is

recycled. In reality, with reprocessing, as this process is called, only a very small part of the spent

nuclear fuel is actually re-used: 99% of the radioactivity and 90% of the waste volume are left at

the end of the process. The process also produces large volumes of different types of radioactive

waste that are difficult to store. Liquid waste pumped into the sea from reprocessing plants in

Sellafield, in the United Kingdom, and la Hague, in France, can be traced as far as the Arctic.5 And

numerous cases of nuclear poisoning have been detected in areas surrounding the reprocessing

plant in Mayak, Russia.

Transport of nuclear waste

Nuclear waste, such as spent nuclear fuel, plutonium and other highly radioactive material, is

transported all over the planet, often passing through large inhabited areas. These deadly convoys

pose a serious risk to populations and ecosystems along the routes. If an accident were to occur,

radioactivity could contaminate several square kilometres or more. The convoys are also at risk of

terrorist attack. The annual transport of nuclear waste from France to Gorleben in Germany

therefore draws tens of thousands of demonstrators. Tons of plutonium resulting from

reprocessing are also regularly shipped from France and the UK to Japan,6 crossing the territorial

waters of many countries on the way, as well as important marine ecosystems. Depleted uranium

from France is transported to Russia, where thousands of barrels are dumped in large open-air

storage sites in the Urals.

The cost of nuclear waste

Because it is as yet unclear how nuclear waste can safely be stored for the amount of time

necessary, it is very difficult to make a full projection of costs. Nuclear energy companies in the EU

are required to reserve money for waste processing and storage in the future. But in several

countries these waste funds appear to be far too small and have in the past been used for new

risky investment. When the UK privatised nuclear utility British Energy, the State had to spend £5.3

billion (€6.6 billion) of taxpayers’ money to fill a hole in the company’s reserves for

decommissioning and waste. But British Energy’s fund would only cover a fraction of the total cost

for decommissioning and waste for all 45 existing British nuclear reactors, so far estimated to be

around £70 billion (€88 billion), the equivalent of almost €2 billion per reactor.

5 See among others: AMAP, 2002. Arctic Pollution 2002: Persistent Organic Polluatants, Heavy Metals, Radioactivity,

Human Health, Changing Pathways. Arctic monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xii+112 pp.

6 The most recent plutonium shipment from France to Japan took place in February 2009 and contained 1,800 kg of

plutonium. Over 20 000 kg are still stored in France and the UK awaiting shipment to Japan.

GREENPEACE DEMANDS

A nuclear phase-out – In order to manage the existing nuclear waste crisis we should first of all

stop producing more waste and develop clean energy production and energy efficiency. There

should be a ban on all new nuclear power reactors and an immediate end to all

reprocessing.

Storage for existing radioactive waste must use the best available technology to prevent

radioactivity from leaking into the environment and to protect human health. Storage should be

managed, monitored and retrievable for an indefinite time period into the future.

No export of nuclear waste – Countries should be responsible for the safe management of the

nuclear waste that they have created and transport of nuclear materials (including spent

nuclear fuel) should be avoided.

Full transparency – Some countries have chosen nuclear waste sites without consulting the local

population and without exploring alternatives. All information relevant to decisions on the

management of nuclear waste should be fully transparent and made available for public

consultation.

Radioactive material from decommissioned nuclear weapons should be treated in order

to minimise the possibility of it being used to make a ‘dirty’ or a nuclear bomb.

Contacts:

Jan Haverkamp – Greenpeace EU nuclear energy policy adviser:

+32 (0)477 790 416 (mobile), jan.haverkamp@greenpeace.org

Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU communications manager:

+32 (0)496 156229 (mobile), mark.breddy@greenpeace.org