Tuesday, 09 February 2010

High level waste could be dumped in West Cumbria

WEST Cumbria residents were consulted this week about plans for an underground nuclear dump for high level radioactive waste in West Cumbria. Allerdale, Copeland and Cumbria County Council are the only authorities that have so far expressed an interest in the Government proposals.

 

The process would involve putting vitrified radioactive waste in a four-square-kilometres storage space 500 metres underground.

Charles Holmes, Allerdale council’s head of regeneration, gave a presentation to the Derwent Valley Neighbourhood Forum in Great Clifton on Tuesday on behalf of West Cumbrian MRWS Partnership, which is dealing with managing radioactive waste safely.

Michael Heaslip, of the partnership, gave the same presentation to the Workington Central Neighbourhood Forum at Bridge Church in Workington.

Mr Holmes said: “This is about informing people. The local area can withdraw at any time. We are only at the beginning now.”

“The emphasis is on voluntarism and the right to withdraw at any time up to the build.”The process started with a Government invitation to local councils to express an interest.

A survey will identify areas where the geology is unsuitable for a dump. There will be further consultation, by 2011, more research and, if the area is suitable and the councils want to continue, a planning application and construction will follow.

Mr Holmes said the project would be similar to the Channel Tunnel in terms of investment and would be a major development for West Cumbria.

He added that he would like to see areas outside Cumbria showing an interest.

The nuclear waste stored could be material that would interest terrorists, warned Mr Heaslip, of the partnership.

At present, 70 per cent of Britain’s nuclear waste is stored at Sellafieldand residents raised concerns about the project.

One at the Workington forum that, if the project came to fruition, “West Cumbria would be in danger of becoming the nuclear dump of Britain”.

Mr Holmes said: “There is potential for a negative perception of the development, which could have a detrimental effect on both investment in the area and tourism.”

Allerdale councillor Heather McIntosh, at Clifton, asked:said: “One of the worries is that decisions are made now that have such long term consequences.“If something goes wrong can it be brought out again?”Mr Holmes said that would be one of the issues that the MRWS programme would investigate.The site would not be operational until 2035.Keith Hitchin, vice chairman of the Cumbria Association of Local Councils (CALC), at Clifton, said: “Some of us aren’t going to be here when this is built so it is important you get young people involved.” A leaflet from the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme outlining the plans is being sent to every household in Cumbria this week.The councils are working in partnership with other agencies including the Lake District National Park Authority and the National Farmers’ Union on the project.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Have your say

In October 1992 Nirex announced plans to build a “Rock Characterisation Facility” or RCF at Sellafield. Nirex critics including Cumbria County Council, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace argued that the RCF was an integral part of Nirex's repository plans and in effect a 'trojan horse' for an intended nuclear waste repository. It was also successfully argued that the RCF proposal was scientifically flawed; and that Nirex's scientific knowledge was insufficient to prove that disposal was safe for any site. In 1997, following a five month local planning inquiry, the Secretary of State for the Environment rejected Nirex's case.

The Inquiry Inspector said “chemical containment is new and untried, with more experimentation and modelling development indubitably required. This work would to my mind be particularly difficult and important because of the problems of meaningfully testing some of the components of the concept. Implicitly Nirex feels unable to credit the notion that this barrier would fail; but the lack of any calculation based on an adverse, as distinct from a conservative, interpretation of this chemical containment seems to me to be an unfortunate omission from the emerging safety case, particularly having regard to FOE's impressive critique of the concept.”
What has changed to make this a viable option now?

Posted by john on 25 November 2009 at 10:27

View all comments on this article

Make your comment

Your name

Your Email

Your Town/City

Your comment


Vote

Should John Terry have kept his England captaincy?

Yes

No

Show Result