Once again DECC has refused to honour its commitment to rule Cumbria out following the No vote. …. meanwhile the wastes continue to arrive at Sellafield. The plutonium continues to stack up from dodgy reprocessing. All the while DECC is wined and dined by the nuclear industry looking to pick up government contracts in the £billions. The taxpayer pays again and again for the privilege of being poisoned. http://www.jeremyleggett.net/2012/11/6632/
—————————- Original Message —————————-
Subject: RE: DECC Jokers have not accepted Cumbria’s NO
Date: Thu, May 9, 2013 2:55 pm
To: “Yates Tom (Office for Nuclear Development)”
Too early to rule Cumbria out??? How can you say that given what we know
about Cumbria’s geology and unwillingness.
I think that dump describes it very well -a careless and hurried dump.
The technology does not exist to contain this stuff into eternity, hence
the reliance on geology- rather than careful and unhurried curation (as
in museum curator) of the wastes into eternity.
> Dear Marianne,
> It’s simply too early to say what any future site selection process might
> be, or what if any mechanism it might include for ruling any areas out.
> But wherever the GDF ends up being sited, I would certainly expect
> Government to continue to engage with the Cumbrian local authorities, and
> hope that they would respond to any consultation on these matters – after
> all, most of the UK’s higher-activity waste is currently held in interim
> storage at the Sellafield site (and until a GDF is constructed, is likely
> to remain there), so they have a direct interest in the outcome, as well
> as experience of our existing site selection process.
> Thanks for the definitions! I think my reluctance to use the term “dump”
> is explained under the verb definition – “typically in a careless or
> hurried way”. Yes, we’re looking to dispose of waste – but in an
> exceptionally careful way (the whole point being to ensure public safety
> in the very long term), in a major infrastructure project that’s expected
> to last for well over a century.
> Best wishes
> —–Original Message—–
> From: email@example.com
> Sent: 08 May 2013 14:28
> To: Yates Tom (Office for Nuclear Development)
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: RE: DECC Jokers have not accepted Cumbria’s NO
> Dear Tom,
> I really hope that I have misrepresented your position but the word
> “existing” suggests not.
> To clarify:
> Will DECC accept Cumbria’s No as final?
> Will DECC rule Cumbria out (advisory role excepted) of any future
> consultation process on site selection?
> Best regards,
> A site for depositing garbage.
> Deposit or dispose of (garbage, waste, or unwanted material), typically in
> a careless or hurried way.
> Radiation Free Lakeland
>> Dear Marianne,
>> Apologies for my confusion about the NGO forum.
>> I think your email misrepresents our position. Government accepts and
>> respects the decision that Cumbria County Council made on 30 January,
>> disappointing though it was, and as a result of it we ended the
>> existing site selection process in west Cumbria. We have said that we
>> will not make any changes to the site selection process without first
>> consulting publicly.
>> We’re certainly not “rubbishing the qualifications of the Nirex
>> – it’s simply a question of what the Inspector was there to do – but I
>> understand that you disagree very strongly with our conclusions on
>> this matter.
>> As for being “hellbent on geological dumping”, clearly we do remain
>> absolutely committed to geological disposal as the right policy for
>> the long-term management of higher-activity radioactive waste, as I
>> believe does every other country with a legacy of such waste.
>> “Dumping” is not of course a term we would use to describe a
>> multi-billion-pound high-tech underground facility. And we’re
>> certainly not tied to Cumbria – it’s a voluntarist process and the
>> invitation remains open to communities elsewhere in the country to
>> express an interest in joining the programme.
>> Best wishes
>> Tom Yates
>> Managing Radioactive Waste Safely
>> Office for Nuclear Development
>> Department of Energy and Climate Change
>> 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW
>> 0300 068 5166
>> —–Original Message—–
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Sent: 08 May 2013 12:47
>> To: Yates Tom (Office for Nuclear Development)
>> Cc: email@example.com
>> Subject: DECC Jokers have not accepted Cumbria’s NO
>> Dear Tom
>> Thank you for your email. I have never been to a NGO forum.
>> It is beyond disheartening to read that DECC refuses to accept
>> Cumbria’s NO to geological dumping in Cumbria
>> Your replies do not answer the questions but they do indicate that
>> Cumbrians have not got through to DECC that we are:
>> a. Not willing (please don’t quote the Mori Poll – it is not even
>> representative of the poll never mind Cumbria) b. Fully aware of
>> Cumbria’s unsuitable geology
>> It seems that DECC is now trying to rubbish the qualifications of the
>> Nirex Inspector saying “The Inspector and his Assessor were not
>> qualified to assess fully the safety case for a geological disposal
>> facility via a planning application..” This is disingenuous. A full
>> safety case would be made only after a suitable site had been
>> selected. Obviously the Nirex Inspector Chris McDonald and his
>> Assessor Colin Knipe were deemed by government to be more than
>> eminently qualified to appraise possible site selection earlier in the
>> process, including preliminary safety cases.
>> The Nirex Inspector was absolutely right when he indicated that the
>> best site in Cumbria was not suitable. If the government is hellbent
>> on geological dumping investigations should be moved to a more
>> promising site elsewhere that are easier to investigate and
>> yours sincerely,
>> Marianne Birkby
>> Radiation Free Lakeland