Category Archives: Geological Dump

30th April, Government Committee Comes to Workington to teach Cumbrians to suck eggs

City of Carlisle - Geological Nuclear Dump

City of Carlisle – Geological Nuclear Dump


…..or in this case heat generating nuclear wastes.  

The plan we were told  was for one mega dump “as big as the City of Carlisle.” Cumbria said No to that plan on 30th January 2013.  It is worth bearing in mind that the area of the City of Carlisle includes much of rural West Cumbria and is ENORMOUS.  Now the government’s increasing and insane nuclear ambitions mean that there would be  not one dump the size of the City of Carlisle but 4 or more  geological dumps.  The Committee of Radioactive Waste Management is coming to Cumbria on 30th April to tell us about their work in advising government.  Originally scheduled to take place in Workington centre, demand was so great that the venue has changed to accommodate more people .  Rather surprisingly the venue has changed to the Hunday Manor Hotel, out on a limb and inaccessible by public transport- we wonder whether this has more to do with ensuring an air of reverence and respect rather than  to accommodate more people.

People can book here – or just turn up!  Your paying!

Its worth a history lesson on the birth of the Committee of Radioactive Waste Management.  To go back nearly 20 years to the original plan,

Immediately after the Nirex inquiry decision by John Gummer (the day the  election was called in 1997) there was a big problem for the nuclear  industry, because their chosen site, Longlands in West Cumbria had been ruled out  as geologically unsuitable, but they knew nowhere else in the country  would be politically acceptable. And the inquiry had only looked at  intermediate-level wastes, not the high-level wastes and spent nuclear  fuel they were hoping to put down there later .  The House of Lords Technology Committee (which is very pro-nuclear) was given the problem  to solve. They recommended the following:

(1) Changing planning law so major infrastructure projects were decided by central government with no cross-examination of scientific evidence so they would not lose again next time (this took them several attempts to get through but became what is now the major infrastructure planning law);

(2) Setting up a process to endorse deep disposal without actually looking at site selection and whether any suitable geology exists (this became the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management who will be coming to the Hunday Manor Hotel on 30th April);

(3) “compensation” for local communities (i.e. money for Copeland, plus what later became the “Energy Coast” PR exercise, i.e. promising jobs that will never materialise). At the same time, Nirex applied to extend the planning permission for their boreholes to continue to investigate the site (they tried to convince a lot of councillors that this would be
some kind of university of geology). Greenpeace and CORE objected to the extension of planning permission. They argued that permission had only been given to the boreholes to investigate the suitability of the site and allowing continuing work would overturn the inquiry decision that  the site was unsuitable. Cumbria County Councillors were persuaded by
this and voted to oppose planning permission and to fill in the boreholes.

New Geological Criteria were later cunningly developed (Criteria Proposals Group and Review Panel) under the auspices of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee to overturn the findings of the Nirex inquiry/appeal and rule Cumbria back in.

It is clear that Committee after Committee is being set up to drive the nuclear agenda.  Any authentic voices that manage to make it onto these government committees are it seems soon forced out, as this letter from former CoRWM members in the British Medical Journal illustrates:

Editor—We have professional interests in the public health impact of ionising radiation, the assessment and management of risk, and the development of policy. After more than a year as members of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) one of us (KB) was sacked and the other driven to resign because of the committee’s wayward modus operandi. CoRWM now lacks serious expertise in these subjects and developing policy to protect the public interest, including its health.1

CoRWM has a membership stronger on public relations than science, is strongly averse to consulting expertise, has adopted a “do it yourself” mode of operation contrary to its overseer role, and commonly relies on help from close associates when needed. Its remit is to advise government on a strategy that can be implemented quickly and will inspire public confidence.

After taking more than a year to eliminate long rejected options such as rocketing high level waste into the sun, the committee now has less than a year to formulate its advice on options that meet the engineering requirement of isolating the waste from the biosphere for up to 100 000 years.

The latest independent review is sceptical that there will be a successful outcome2 given the avoidable damage to the credibility of the committee from its failure to develop a science strategy before January 2005. As then members, we thought that this was not so much a failure as a deliberate antiscience strategy.

If the material stored at many places around the United Kingdom were inadvertently or deliberately dispersed, or some unsafe but seemingly publicly acceptable solution were implemented, the potential for major public health damage would be huge now and in the future. No strategy has been in place for managing radioactive waste in the UK in the past 25 years, and the medical profession should be concerned that this latest initiative is so controversial and lacking in professionalism.

In November 2003 the BMA wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) expressing its concern that the newly formed CoRWM had no medically qualified members. As we have not been replaced (even by co-option) CoRWM now lacks health and risk expertise as well as any hands-on expertise on the science and engineering of radioactive waste management.

Is this a responsible way to make such a momentous decision?

1. Baverstock KF, Ball DJ. The UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. J Radio Prot 2005;25: 313-20. [PubMed]
2. Collier D. CoRWM phase 2 evaluation. Oxford: Faulkland Associates, 2005. (Report R06.)
3. House of Lords. Radioactive waste management: 5th report, science and technology committee. London: House of Lords, 2004. 

Don’t mention the ‘N’ word at Cumbria Wildlife Trust’s Irish Sea Conference




TOMORROW DEMO OUTSIDE IRISH SEA CONFERENCE – 8th April from 8.30am to 9.30am at the Netherwood Hotel, Grange over Sands.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust are about to pull off a magnificent sleight of hand at tomorrow’s Irish Sea conference.

Despite the Irish Sea being the most radioactively polluted in the world with plans to increase that pollution a billion fold with new build and geological dumps spewing crapola into the Irish Sea, there will no passing reference to nuclear.

Well maybe Sir Martin Holdgate will mention the ‘N’ word in his presentation on the “riches of the Irish Sea and the threats it currently faces, emphasising a science-based approach to conservation”.   But whats the betting that nuclear will be mentioned as an “opportunity” ?

Sir Martin famously campaigned vehemently and successfully against the demonised wind turbines at Whinash, while promoting new nuclear as “an opportunity” and even suggesting it could be seen as “renewable.”

So, while Ireland’s National Trust are throwing down a legal challenge to the UK government’s plans to further pollute the Irish Sea with new nuclear build, our neutered Cumbria Wildlife Trust who by the way are in receipt of nuclear money, says nowt!


Radiation Free Lakeland will be staging a demo outside the conference and handing out leaflets – please join us tomorrow 8.30 till 9.30


More info:

Moorcide – bigger than (!!!) and adjacent to the largest concentration of radioactive crapola in the world.


A4 Poster Radioactive Particles have been found on this beach

Radioactive Particles have been found on this beach


Sucking the Sea Life from the Oceans 101 Uses for a Nuclear Power Station


Thermal standards for cooling water from new build nuclear power stations

(the report can be downloaded from:

Produced by the Expert Panel, British EDF Estuarine & Marine
Studies (BEEMS)

The abstraction and return of seawater used for cooling
represents the most important environmental aspect to the marine
environment of nuclear power station operation. The discharge
introduces significant thermal energy (heat) to receiving
waters, which will continue with little variation throughout the
operational life of the station, which may exceed 40 years.
Return cooling-water will typically be 8–10°C higher than
background. A modest temperature rise adjacent to the discharge
is inevitable with little practical opportunity for mitigation
once the station is commissioned.


On this Day January 30th 2013..Super Eddie Saved Cumbria from Nukiller Dump

Super Eddie Saves Cumbria from Nukiller Dump

Super Eddie Saves Cumbria from Nukiller Dump

Gratitude and Thanks to Eddie Martin!

Now the County needs to step up to the mark and save Cumbria all over again. The government is desperate to get shot of nuclear wastes, the plan is to dump Heat Generating High Level Wastes into our Geology and the Higher Activity Low Level Wastes into ordinary landfill.

Please send Objections to the plan to extend the Lillyhall landfill license to include Higher Activity Low Level wastes…it is madness!

Radiation Free Lakeland’s Objection (summary) below

Dear Members of Cumbria County Council Development Control and Regulation

Lillyhall Radioactive Waste Repository?

Re: Proposal to use Lillyhall Landfill Site, West Cumbria, to dump Higher
Activity Low Level Radioactive Wastes up till the year 2029.

Ref: Application No: 2/13/9007 Lillyhall – The applicant proposal would
include the disposal of wastes upto 400 Bq/g or 400,000 bq/kg Higher
Activity Low Level Waste

This time last year Cumbria County Council said a strong NO to the
government plan for a geological dump containing heat generating high
level wastes under Cumbria. We are writing to you now to urge you to
strongly oppose the plan to turn Lillyhall into a radioactive waste dump
for Higher Activity Low Level Waste.

There is a cynical and dangerous mission creep going on at Lillyhall. The
site originally only accepted Naturally Occuring Radioactive Materials and
then it was licensed over the heads of the council and businesses to
accept the newly classified “exempt” High Volume Low Level Radioactive

This “exempt” classification led of course to Sellafield dumping low level
and intermediate level wastes into the landfill and being fined £700,000
(paid for by the taxpayer). Now the European Union has classified
Lillyhall as a Radioactive Waste Repository earmarked to accept wastes
from for example Chapelcross in Scotland up until the year 2029 and
beyond. This is unacceptable.

Radiation Free Lakeland urge Cumbria County Council to refuse the permit
for Lillyhall landfill as a Nuclear Waste Site for the following reasons:

1. There is no monitoring once the radioactive waste leaves the nuclear
site in tipper trucks
2. The EU say there will be a “controlled release of radioactivity to
groundwaters” and that this will “not impact on member states” This is
3. Radioactive waste arrives at the landfill site in unmarked plastic bags.
4. Radioactive Waste coming into the county from, for example, Scotland
5. Lillyhall landfill site is subject to water ingress/flooding
6. Lillyhall landfill site is two miles from of the town of Workington, a
mile from Harrington and less than half a mile from Distington and a few
minutes walk from the Nuclear Academy
7. Adverse health impacts. The Environment Agency in its draft
authorisiation for the Kingscliffe site in Northamptonshire said: “It is
true that an exposure to 0.02mSv per year of ionising radiation would be
expected to have an adverse effect on human health…” This is from waste up
to 200 bequerels per gram – up to 400 bequerels a gram is being proposed
at Lillyhall!
8. There is predetermination from the European Commission that Lillyhall
will be the next Radioactive Waste Repository to take the pressure off

The EU Directorate says:
“A recent Hydrogeological Risk Assessment has demonstrated that the
proposed modifications to the design are sufficient for the controlled
release of radioactivity in the HV-VLLW to groundwaters.
It is
expected that the HV-VLLW will arrive at the Lillyhall Landfill Site in
skips or tipper trucks. The waste will be covered during transport to
prevent the re-suspension of dust and water ingress. Plastic liners or
super sacks may be used to reduce any contamination of the transport
container. The HV- VLLW will be loose-tipped to one side of the cell and
non-radioactive waste will be disposed to other parts of the cell. HV VLLW
is proposed to be deposited in its own dedicated cell and once complete
this area will be engineered in the same manner as the dedicated asbestos
cell, after which it will be covered with non-hazardous waste. There will
be no intimate mixing between the radioactive and non- radioactive wastes.
The waste will be tipped in such a way as to ensure that large gradients
in slope do not arise, there is no slumping of the waste and the addition
of a soil layer on top of the HV-VLLW is practicable”.

Radiation Free Lakeland urge you to refuse this application and also to
question the
“decommissioning” ethos of “disperse and dilute” rather than permanent
containment on the nuclear sites undergoing “decommissioning.”

Yours sincerely,
Marianne Birkby, Radiation Free Lakeland

Fully referenced and expanded statement attached


ACTION 1. Please Write to Cumbria County Council urging them not to give operators a license to dump ANY radioactive waste into Lillyhall landfill (info and points to make below)
The Development Control Committee Chair is
If you can write to all 18 of the Committee that would be great!

ACTION 2. Please ask to speak at the County Council meeting tbc (around 26th Feb in Kendal or Carlisle). The more people who register to speak the more chance we have of stopping this dumping of radioactive waste in landfill.
Contact: Mrs Jayne Petersen, Tel: 01539 713549; Email:

Application No: 2/13/9007 “The applicant proposal would include the disposal of wastes upto 400 Bq/g i.e. that which falls within the lower end of Higher Activity Low Level Waste.. ” uptil 2029

more here:

Letter from Sellafield Worker Exposes Nuclear Corruption


There is something seriously wrong when the UK nuclear industry’s corruption of governance is exposed not by Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth but by a brave and principled Sellafield worker.

The national media have gone along with the myth that the Sellafield Workers Campaign represent the workforce and West Cumbria. Cumbria is being sold down the radioactive river by unparalleled nuclear corruption that extends to every facet of our society.

SIR – Recently a copy of the Sellafield Workers Campaign (SWC) Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) consultation submission was emailed to me.

While I do agree with some of the document, there are other sections that I’m not happy with.

I work at Sellafield, have done so for 30 years, and pay my union fees, so that I may be represented in pay talks, and other industrial relation issues. This is where my association with my union ends.

The SWC is a small organisation made up from shop stewards, from differing unions. I acknowledge their right to campaign on issues, but do feel that they have absolutely no right to declare that they represent 10,000 employees outside of the work environment.

I’m a member of one trade union, and am not a member of an amalgamation of three. I have not signed up to this organisation. I didn’t vote for this, nor did I agree for them to represent me, in my community.

The SWC assertion that they represent all employees is disingenuous.

I was one of the Sellafield employees who got in touch with Eddie Martin during the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) fiasco. I urged Mr Martin to say no, if there was a risk of a GDF being sunk beneath the Lake District National Park – which will soon (hopefully) become a Unesco World Heritage Site. I still maintain this stance. There has to be limits to this stupidity. To define no red line, and have an open-ended process, where the views of the public are ignored is not democratic, and is dangerous.

We are being rail-roaded into accepting a sub-standard repository, where engineering takes primacy over geology. The last few weeks in West Cumbria have taught us lessons about engineering. A storm lasting a few hours can cause untold damage. If the option of engineering, over geology is sought out, we can expect nature to bite us harder than it has ever done before.

The SWC view themselves as a ‘legitimate representative of the communities of West Cumbria’, and yet they view opposition groups, such as the Cumbria Trust quite differently. At least Cumbria Trust invite people to join their ranks, instead of making assumptions that the SWC have. They are blinkered, and blind to the views of the rest of the community.

My postman has more contact with the communities than what the SWC claim to represent – he’s more of a legitimate representative, than this group will ever be!

The SWC has controlling individuals at its core, whose reach stretches out into local/national government. They control local politicians, influencing their decision making processes through fear of losing seats, and lucrative allowances. They also take part in behind closed door meetings with council leaders. What are they discussing? Are the rest of the community happy for these unelected individuals to influence policy by lobbying?

As well as controlling local politicians, they fill many seats at Copeland Borough Council, with current, or ex Sellafield employees. They only do this for one thing. That is for total control.

There are many similarities with Copeland, when compared with Falkirk (where there was uproar over alleged union interference with election candidates). Union activities should be distinctly separate from politics. Of course, the Copeland Labour party will tell you that they select candidates, not the unions. But, the local Labour party is run by ex, and current union representatives!

For more than 20 years, Sellafield unions have filled many seats at Copeland Borough Council, and selected our MPs. We all know how these nuclear professionals have performed while sitting in office – they have killed the area, by squandering tens of millions of pounds. So, what makes them think that they can do a better job with the MRWS process? Their record has been abysmal. The sooner non-Sellafield councillors take up office, the better.

Union officials, the Copeland MP, backed by kowtowing council leaders have attempted to influence the MRWS process, to the detriment of those that do not work at Sellafield. The general public are absolutely not represented by the reckless puppet masters, who are pulling the strings of local politics. This interference must stop.

The MRWS process should be managed by scientists, and geologists who know what they are talking about, instead of having amoral bullies hijacking something that we owe future generations to get right.


Address Supplied

Image from the Independent

The below was written in 2012 by Radiation Free Lakeland
to MP Tim Farron asking for an investigation into the corruption of governance

* Government Appointed Geologist – Licensed to Kill?*

This year DECC will spend three quarters of its budget on the NDA. Much
of this money is being spent in Cumbria on the quango MRWS. At the MRWS
‘drop in’ sessions throughout Cumbria the public are being induced by the
government appointed geologist to take another step towards geological
‘disposal.’ The language used by the government appointed geologist is
inflammatory and if ” ..I will kill them” had been uttered by a
campaigner the police would have been knocking on the campaigner’s door
the next morning.

“If anyone questions my intellectual independence I will kill them”
unprovoked outburst from Dr Jeremy Dearlove to campaigner Marianne Birkby
on 18th January at Millom.

This is not a forgivable isolated incident said in the heat of the moment.
A separate complaint has been made to MRWS. Dr Jeremy
Dearlove has also been coercing the public with reassurances that a
nuclear ‘repository’ would be so safe he would be happy to have it under
his home. Dr Dearlove is thought to live in Ennerdale.

This inducement of the public and Decision Making Bodies to take nuclear
related decisions in a certain direction is endemic in Cumbria. From Lord
Clark’s conflict of interest as LDNPA Chair and director of Sellafield to
Eric Robson’s role as Chair of Cumbria Tourism and MRWS PR guru, the
corruption of Cumbria’s decision makers is rife.

A joint report by Unlock Democracy and The Association for the
Conservation of Energy called ‘A Corruption of Governance’ has just been
presented to government about how ministers and the public have been
misled into continuing the nuclear agenda

The conclusions of the report are
1. Parliament needs to re-open the nuclear debate, and to make a
decision based
upon the correct and full evidence.
2. Members of Parliament must seek answers as to how this has happened.
3. There should be a Select Committee inquiry into this corruption of

Radiation Free Lakeland would also ask that there should be an independent
inquiry into the endemic corruption of Cumbria’s decision makers into
enabling ‘steps towards geological disposal.’

yours sincerely,
Marianne Birkby
Radiation Free Lakeland


DECCs Budget

Dr Jeremy Dearlove’s statement

Lord Clark – non exec Director of Sellafield and LDNPA Partnership Chair

Corruption of Governance

Beatrix Potter’s Evil Master Plan: Trash Woodlands, Replace with “woolly maggots”


Beatrix Potter's Bequest

Beatrix Potter’s Bequest

Beatrix Potter’s Evil Master Plan: Trash Woodlands, Replace with “woolly maggots” So says George Monbiot.

Nuclear enthusiast George Monbiot has said of the Lakeland fells: “The forests that once covered them have been reduced by the white plague to bare rock and bowling green…the sheep wiped the hills clean.” Sounds persuasive. But is it credible?

Far from the fells being covered in trees the pre-Neolithic landscape would be a relatively open park-like mosaic rather than closed forest. It is a very safe bet that there are far fewer of Beatrix Potter’s beloved Herdwick on the Lakeland fells now than there were when she was the Ennerdale Show President in the 1930′s. It is also very safe to say that the wildlife of the Fells was far more abundant in Beatrix Potters hayday. Recent research into the ‘brand’ of Cumbria has shown that farming and tourism are the two industries most damaged by nuclear developments. Undermining farming and tourism would leave the field wide open for the nuclear industry to achieve its ambition of New build and burying heat generating nuclear waste under Cumbria. A friend of Beatrix Potter, the sculptress Josefina de Vasconcellos arrived in Cumbria in the 1930s:

“When I first came to the Lake District whenever John or I walked there were birds but since the atomic station came there have been less and less and less, they almost died out”.

Josefina’s observations are backed up by science. Lancaster University has been studying the effects of chronic long-term radiation on animals. This includes: “Severe effect on reproduction hatching and abnormal larvae (fish).”

These test studies are backed up by findings in the real world. Many universities worldwide have been studying evidence from nuclear accidents:

“Low-dose radiation has been known to have negative consequences for living beings for almost 100 years. Indeed, background radiation causes the death of tens of thousands of humans annually. These ‘natural’ effects may be exacerbated by the 23 nuclear accidents recorded during the last century”.

Radiation Free Lakeland believe Sellafield to be the equivalent of an ongoing accident with routine releases of radiation to sea, air and groundwaters.

Beatrix Potter left a vast area of Cumbria to the National Trust to be farmed with the express wish of keeping Herdwicks on the land. Her life’s work was to retain the delicate balance created by the domestic and wild community that share and maintain the Lake District. “Rewilding” sounds good but seeks to to divorce domestic animals and humans from the community of the wild. The outcome, a dystopia where humans live only in cities and any link to the wild is through a tv.

While there is no doubt much to improve in farming, blaming sheep for eating trees is disingenuous. Rabbits, grey squirrels and deer are much more problematic than sheep in the establishment of young trees in a dynamic landscape. Nuclear is needed in that living landscape like a hole in the head. George Monbiot’s vitriol against “woolly maggots” has maybe far less to do with sheep than with a desire to further the nuclear agenda at any cost. In Japan Beatrix Potter’s Tales are used to teach English to Japanese children, thousands of whom are now nuclear refugees.

The same companies who designed and built Fukushima have walked away from any responsibility and want to build nuclear reactors in the UK. Many Cumbrians are hefted to the land the same as the Herdwicks but the land is not ours to curse.

For all our sakes … Stop and Contain nuclear.


Wildthings: Childrens Culture and Ecocriticism Of Beatrix Potter : Real “magic” is the delicate balance created by thecommunity of creatures and plants that share and maintain a habitat like the Lake District’s

Rabbit Guards

there is general agreement that the original-natural forest may have been more open than was previously thought,
English Nature

Grey Squirrel Damage

Ennerdale Show Presidents

Josefina de Vasconcellos

Effects after chronic radiation

Fresh Water Use

Podium 4

The A83 and Sheep – The Lie of the Land
George Monbiot has introduced his “Sheepwrecked” premise with a story about the A83 in Scotland, a road notorious for landslips. The premise is that sheep are a major factor in causing landslides. Really? Cattle and sheep have grazed the land in this area of Scotland for longer than the A83 was in existence, not to mention red deer and other land mammals. One Landslide Mitigation method suggested for the A83 is the “introduction of sheep.” This is suggested as having the potential to lessen instability of the hillside from three perspectives:
To keep the height of the grass down to help reduce the build-up of snow in the winter
To prevent un-grazed grass dying off and weighing down the slope
Sheep forming compacted paths as they traverse the hillside thus creating drainage run off
The Landslide Mitigation report’s final conclusion is “it seems prudent to recommend that if vegetation planting is to form part of an on-going strategy to address instability at this location then efforts should be made to limit the presence, or exclude completely, livestock and in particular deer.” All the best lies have a little bit of truth in them and although George is right in a No Shit Sherlock: sheep eat grass, kind of way, it is clear that the principle agents of landslides on the A83 are not the sheep

Bonkers Scenario: 50 Nukiller Plants and 4 Geological Dumps…

You Lie

The following is from NuCLear News and outlines the bonkers scenario that would see the UK covered in nuclear enrichment plants, nuclear reactors, reprocessing plants and four (!!) geological dumps. No wonder there is a dash for fracked gas – Sellafield uses over £30 million of gas now – imagine what 50+ nuke “facilities” would need!! WHAT is all this “needed” for. Is Britain to become the nuclear ghetto of Europe? Even the French are looking a bit leery about nuclear now, while our press continues to groom the public into nuclear acquiescence. Or maybe this is so that people heave a sigh of relief when “only” one or two get built? NO – there is no room on planet earth for ANY more Nukiller.

Nuclear News…
1. The Bonkers Scenario – Volunteers for 4 nuclear dumps please?

In April 2013 (NuClearNews No.49) we reported that the government’s high-nuclear
scenario was one of four set out in the 2011 carbon plan. (1) This envisaged 75GW of
nuclearcapacity in 2050 providing 86% of the UK’s electricity. (2)

In order to achieve 75GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, (which incidentally would
require an eye watering 30GW of new capacity to be built between 2030 and 2040 and
another 30GW between 2040 and 2050) the Government expects to need newer
fission technologies such as evolutionary LWR’s, small modular reactors (SMRs)
or Generation IV (mainly fast reactors); options for closing the uranium fuelcycle
and reprocessing spent fuel; progressing the development of fusion; and consideration
of alternative fuel cycles such as thorium. (3)

On nuclear waste the Government said demonstrating that the UK has a credible
programme to deliver a disposal route for higher activity wastes and have it in
operation assoon as safely practical is a foundation stone for the UK’s short,
medium and long term nuclear strategies.

Now the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has looked at the waste
implications of a 75GW nuclear programme which equates to over 50 new large-scale
modern reactors. CoRWM said “Thereis a need for clarity that any data given for, for
example, 16GWe, are anexample rather than either an expectation or a limit.” (4)

CoRWM says themaximum allowable inventory in any individual Geological Disposal
Facility(GDF) has to be determined by the Safety Case. It would therefore be prudent
tokeep open the possibility of multiple GDFs:

“Whilst CoRWM understands why the Government has given the example of new build
wastes arising only from developed proposals where information on the waste types
isknown, 16GWe is only the ‘first tranche’ figure and substantially below the75GWe
upper limit being examined in DECC … This issue reinforces the requirement to leave
the option open for more than one repository.”

Dr David Lowry,an environmental policy consultant and nuclear specialist, told The
Observerthat a 75GW scenario was a “nuclear fantasia at its worst”, and failed to
explain how huge amounts of radioactive waste generated by the plants would be
stored. (5)

The Environment Agency (EA) has set a limit on the risk that may be caused by the
burial ofradioactive wastes of 10-6 (i.e. one in a million). (6) However, the NDA
Disposability AssessmentReport for waste arising from new EPR reactors states:

“…a risk of 5.3x 10-7 per year for the lifetime arisings of a fleet of six EPR
reactors” (7)

This is more than half the total risk of 10-6 allowable for a GDF. Clearly a GDF with
spent fuel from more than 12 newEPR reactors, as well as legacy waste, would exceed
the risk targets set by the EA.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation, therefore, would suggest that a 75GWprogramme
could require around 4 GDFs.

A cross-government review, undertaken in response to the House of Lords’ Science and
Technology Committee’s report on UK nuclear research and development
(R&D) capabilities, has resulted in the publication of a suite of documents
available on the Government website. These include the Nuclear Industry Strategy,
aNuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap, a Nuclear Industrial
VisionStatement, a Long Term Nuclear Energy Strategy, and a Civil Nuclear
Researchand Development Landscape Review.

The TechnologyStrategy Board (TSB), the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and
the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) are now investing up to £13m
in collaborative R&D and feasibility study projects, to stimulate innovation and
strengthen the UK’s civil nuclear supply chain. The competition is open to all sizes
of businesses and research organisations who may already be engagedin the nuclear
sector or who are considering entering this growing market forthe first time.

DECC says its work includes considering how the UK energy system might evolve in the
future and the roles that different types of energy generation may play in it. This
may include new designs of nuclear reactors and new types of fuel. Most of the
world’s nuclear power reactors tend to run on uranium fuel, be cooled by water and,
in order to sustain the heat-giving nuclear reaction in the reactor core, they must
slow down the neutrons that the fuel emits. However, there are a range of reactor
designs in various stages of development that differ from these and that may offer
advantages over currently available reactor systems. Some of these also offer the
possibility of using thorium, rather than uranium as a fuel, which also may offer
desirable characteristics. (8)

Instead of halting the nuclear juggernaught this is Business as usual -
but on a BIGGER and much more dangerous scale – we are being led up the toxic garden path.

1. NuClear News No.49, April 2013

2. TheCarbon Plan: delivering Our Low Carbon Future, DECC, December 2011

3. Long-term Nuclear Energy Strategy, BIS &DECC March 2013

4. CoRWMresponse to GDF Siting Consultation December 2013

See also Rob Edwards 12th Dec2013

5. Observer21st Dec 2013

6. EnvironmentAgency (February 2009) Geological Disposal Facilities on Land
for SolidRadioactive Wastes: Guidance on Requirements for Authorisation, page 46

7. NDA(22nd Jan 2010) GenericDesign Assessment: Disposability Assessment for
wastes and spent fuel arisingfrom operation of the UK EPR. Part 1 Main Report. para
5.4 page 97.

8. DECC8th Jan 2014

See also

Higher LevelRadioactive Waste: Likely inventory range; the process for altering it;
how thecommunity might influence it and understanding the implications of new
nuclearbuild. Presented to West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely
Partnership, Pete Roche, 5th August 2010

Her Majesty’s Government Plot Cumbrian Nuclear Dump

Her Majesty’s Government plot exposed. If Cumbrians continue to oppose a geological nuclear dump under their beautiful land, Lord O’Neill, celebrated member of the Humanist Society advocates a more “aggressive” approach.

Meanwhile the press keeps schtum and says nothing about this abuse of human rights.

Don’t scare the horses?

Lords Select Committee treated to Nuclear Porky Pies by Michael Fallon..Mmm- tasty


Michael Fallon MP, Minister of State for Business and Energy at DECC

has just said in oral evidence to a Lords Select Committee that:

it is “not right a county council should have a veto over a GDR”;

a wider county has no real interest in the siting of a GDR;

that the consultation has already ended on the GDR siting.

All of which is untrue

This is vile pigs swill served up as factoid.

Of course the County Council has a very real “interest” there is NOTHING more important to Cumbria than the Government’s

push to dump existing and future heat generating nuclear waste in a mega mine under Cumbria.

This is of “real interest” not only to Cumbria but also to our neighbours across the Irish Sea and beyond.

The CONsultation is of course a sham but it has NOT ended- due to the Government’s incompetence, and lets be honest why would they even bother being competent on a sham CONsultation the outcome of which they have predetermined.

Our only hope is to RESIST it is clear that Government is desperate to be seen to have a solution to the nuclear waste problem and dumping it under Cumbria is it. NO!!

Object to Michael Fallon’s false testimony to the House of Lords Select Committee On Science and Technology
made on Tuesday 10 December, Committee Room 3, Palace of Westminster At 10.45am Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP, Minister of State for Energy, Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)

Make the points that
Cumbria County Council had a right of veto under the Governments own rules of engagement on the MRWS process.
Cumbria County Council has a real interest in opposing and halting the proposed geological dumping of heat generating radioactive waste in a mine 25km square and 1000m deep
Neighbouring Counties and Countries have a real interest in opposing and halting the proposed geological dumping of heat generating radioactive waste in a mine 25km square and 1000m deep
and the CONsultation has been extended to 19th December due to Government incompetence in giving out false contact information for submissions.

Ring, Write, Email:

more here:


Demonstration outside DECC - NO NUKE DUMP 3rd Dec 2013

Today representatives from Radiation Free Lakeland (RaFL) were joined by other groups
outside the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

RaFL says the new DECC consultation will exclude Cumbria County Council – the body
that successfully rejected plans for a repository earlier this year. Hundreds of
‘No’ letters have been hand delivered to Energy Secretary Ed Davey.

‘This new process leads to only one outcome – a nuclear dump under Cumbria,’ says
RaFL’s spokesperson, Marianne Birkby. ‘We are fighting this not just for Cumbria
but to stop highly radioactive waste being imposed on any community in the UK.’

Meanwhile On Thursday (Dec 5th) a demonstration will be held outside the Royal Courts of
Justice in support of heritage group An Taisce’s legal action. The Dublin-based
organisation asserts that the British government did not properly consult the Irish
public before granting building consent for the Hinkley C nuclear power station in

The Hinkley C site is only 150 miles from the Irish Coast. An Taisce, the Irish
version of the National Trust, claims the power station could have a serious impact
on the lives of Irish citizens if there was a radioactive leak or accident.

“An Taisce’s legal challenge once again highlights how the coalition government is
forcing through its nuclear energy policy with complete disregard for the health or
financial welfare of the people of the UK and its environs,’ said Camilla Berens,
spokesperson for the Stop New Nuclear Alliance.

Only last month, Naomi Hirose, president of Tepco, the Japanese company responsible
for the stricken Fukushima nuclear power station, warned that the UK should be
‘prepared for the worst’ in terms of a similar disaster happening here.

‘The danger of nuclear radiation are worrying enough,’ Camilla adds. ‘If you add
this to the soaring costs of new nuclear that are being imposed on the British
public through back-door subsidies, it is clear that the government is taking us
backwards rather than forward in terms of creating a sustainable energy future.’

The Stop New Nuclear Alliance represents UK groups opposed to the construction of
Hinkley C in Somerset and Sizewell C in Suffolk. Member groups include CND,
London-based Kick Nuclear and South West Against Nuclear (SWAN).
The Alliance maintains that Germany is leading the way in creating a sustainable
energy future. As well as phasing out its nuclear capacity, the German government is
backing massive R&D investment to make renewable energy fit for purpose in the 21st
century. It is also expanding the use of ‘bridging’ technologies such as combined
heat and power.

Kick Nuclear
Campaigning against the UK’s addiction to nuclear power

Twitter: @stopnukepower

Stop New Nuclear Alliance

Boycott EDF Energy

‘The Gift’ That No One Wants

Christmas 'GIFT' to Cumbria - Hot Radioactive Waste Dump

Christmas ‘GIFT’ to Cumbria – Hot Radioactive Waste Dump

The map above is to scale and shows the size of the area proposed by government for a geological dump 25km square under Cumbria’s beautiful rivers, mountains, towns and villages. The discussions as to “where this would go” under Cumbria are a meaningless distraction – this would be so big and so leaky it would be close to everywhere!

This map does not of course include the access shafts or above ground ‘canning factory’ or the ‘sidings’ where the waste would arrive prior to burial.

Radiation Free Lakeland will be going to London on 3rd Dec to protest our opposition to the CONsultation and to the continued push for geological dumping under Cumbria or anywhere else for that matter. We will be delivering hundreds of letters to DECC (see below if you would like to add your name)

Geological dumping aims to put the waste out of reach of future generations. Cumbrian councils and others are insisting that the waste should also be retrievable. Retrievability is essential. Geological dumping is incompatible with retrievability. Geological dumping would mean putting the waste out of the reach of future generations and preventing them from ensuring their groundwaters are safe from radioactive contamination.

The reason Government are pushing so hard for geological dumping under Cumbria is to enable new nuclear build. A report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (known as the Flowers Report) stated that:
“… it would be morally wrong to commit future generations to the consequences of fission power on a massive scale unless it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that at least one method exists for the safe isolation of these wastes for the indefinite future.” [para 181, page 81]

This report still stands and was the basis of a challenge by Greenpeace over Hinkley C. Surprising then that the normally lionhearted Greenpeace wimped out and withdrew their challenge quietly in October. According to Greenpeace campaigner Emma Gibson: the Government had since disclosed the bulk of its defence, which she admitted showed there were plans for a waste dump.

Really!! Shouldn’t Cumbrians be told what these papers contain?

Radiation Free Lakeland asked Greenpeace and their answer is: The papers are confidential under legal process and cannot be released.

We have asked government under the Freedom of Information Act for the content of the papers disclosed to Greenpeace. If as Greenpeace have claimed it is “highly unlikely” the dump will be built and that the “implementation of geological disposal” needs to be seen to continue in order to enable new build then why drop the legal challenge? Either way Cumbrians are being subjected to huge emotional trauma while radioactive wastes stack up at Sellafield from continued reprocessing and the dodgy ducks are lined up for insane new build.

Hundreds of Letters (below) will be be delivered to the Department of Energy and Climate Change on 3rd Dec by Radiation Free Lakeland …
email your name and address to : with DUMP ED DAVEY in the subject line to add your name

To the Department of Energy and Climate Change

Dear Ed Davey,

Cumbrians have said No repeatedly to a geological dump anywhere under this land from Morecambe Bay to the Solway. The new consultation announced by DECC is a narrowly focused set of questions with the aim of achieving a Yes response to a repository as quickly as possible by scrapping the rights of host communities to say NO. The consultation aims to give the few people on the Allerdale and Copeland Borough Council Executive the sole right to make the decision. Cumbrians have already said no repeatedly to becoming the nuclear dumping ground for existing and future radioactive wastes taken out of reactor cores and buried under Cumbria’s leaky geology.

Cumbria is not a willing volunteer for the geological dumping of nuclear wastes and the representative County council has already said NO. I say NO to geological dumping of nuclear waste under Cumbria.

Yours sincerely,



FLowers Report and History of Nuclear Waste

Geological Disposal

Rock Solid? A scientific review by Dr Helen Wallace -European Leaders are being misled over the safety of underground disposal of dangerous nuclear waste which could poison groundwaters for centuries

Greenpeace Challenge Withdrawn

101 Uses for a Nuclear Power Station


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 177 other followers