Media Blackout on Lillyhall’s Radioactive Waste Landfill Decision- WHY?

Beneath the Dark Mountain, lies the Dark Secret... the earth is Unearth - and can never be unearthed.
Beneath the Dark Mountain, lies the Dark Secret… the earth is Unearth – and can never be unearthed.
"exempt" nuke waste in landfill - NO THANKS! image:News and Star 7th June
“exempt” nuke waste in landfill – NO THANKS!
image:News and Star 7th June

The following is a letter sent to councillors by a supporter of a radiation free Cumbria.

Dear Councillor
Re: Lillyhall Landfill

Doubtless many of you felt that yesterday's planning meeting saw you bounced into
making a decision on the future of the landfill site at Lillyhall and most
importantly on the acceptance of radioactive waste into the site.
It seems from the little I have been able to read about the meeting that there was
an element of confusion about what activity level of waste was finally agreed to. 
It would be helpful if you could confirm what wastes have actually been given
permission for acceptance at the site.  Suspiciously, there has been no comment from
the County Council on this decision or from FCC.  The only public reference or
report to the meeting thus far has been through the good offices of Marianne Birkby.

From the point of view of the general public it feels like this has all been a
behind closed doors done deal.  That is not an accusation directed at the
Councillors, but at the planning officers concerned and the legal team who seemed to
have compelled you into an uncomfortable decision.
I am particularly puzzled by the recommendation by the planning officers in the
light of the what was said at the Keekle Head inquiry by them on the subject of
Lillyhall.  I would like to draw your attention to the inspectors report which can
be read in full here:
In paragraph 6.230 the Inspector says that:
CCC has explicitly not allocated Lillyhall for radioactive waste disposal in the
Consultation version of the new Minerals & Waste Local Plan [DOC L1, para 20.19],
principally because of its location adjacent to one of the county’s main employment
land sites and cumulative impact of further extending the several decades of
landfilling in this locality. It was confirmed at the inquiry that this remains the
council officers’ view. It is fruitless to speculate whether this stance will
survive the consultation on, and examination of the Plan. [2.99, 2.100, 3.40]
If what the Inspector says is true - and I'd be sure that it was -then I would like
you to ask the planning officers if they are guilty of misleading a public inquiry
about the intentions and recommendations at Lillyhall?  Why has there been such a
change between last summers inquiry and yesterdays permission?  Does this make their
recommendations to you and the insistence that Lillyhall should go ahead invalid?
I look forward to your further response
Yours sincerely
Grace Forde

more info below:



Correspondence from 2010 – the whole sorry tale of how Lillyhall is stitched up as a Radiatioctive Waste Dump – just don’t call it radioactive waste “exempt” and then the limits can be increased once the precedent is set…

Subject: Re: Lillyhall Landfill
From: “Fairhurst, Andrew” <>
Date: Tue, July 6, 2010 3:57 pm
To: wildart
Priority: Normal

Dear Marianne

Ref. Enquiry Ref 100518DF/30 (Duty of Care Ref 5281) – Lillyhall

Further to your email of 16 June 2010 please find attached a copy of the
permit that we have granted for disposals at the Lillyhall Landfill
site, which details, amongst other things, the monitoring requirements.
I hope the following explanation addresses most of your queries about
the issue of disposal of radioactive waste at the site.

The Lillyhall Landfill site is operated by Waste Recycling Group (WRG)
under an Environmental Permit (Reference EA/EPR/GP3037SJ/V004). This was
initially issued under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations,
but automatically became and Environmental Permit when the Environmental
Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2007 were introduced. This
permit allows Lillyhall Stage 3 Landfill Site to receive and dispose of
Directive waste. Radioactive waste is not Directive waste and is not
covered by this waste legislation.

This means that WRG cannot dispose of radioactive waste at the Lillyhall
Landfill unless it has been ‘exempted’ from the requirements of the
Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Various ‘exemption orders’ exist which
provide a mechanism of control without excessive bureaucracy. They
include exemptions that allow for materials to be handled and disposed
of as if they were not radioactive waste, due for instance to their very
low activity. An example of this is the ‘Substances of Low Activity
(SOLA) exemption order’ or ‘phosphatic substances exemption order’ under
the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

Radioactive waste which comes under such an exemption order may be
disposed of to the Lillyhall Landfill site under the permit we have
granted, providing the waste otherwise meets all the requirements of
that permit (for instance it does not pose any other hazardous
properties such as being an irritant or corrosive). The waste must also
fall within an appropriate waste type (EWC Code) as defined within
Schedule 3 of the permit and be consistent with Waste Acceptance
Criteria in line with condition 2.8 of the permit.

On this basis exempted radioactive waste has been disposed of at the
Lillyhall Landfill site in the past and further disposals may occur. As
described above, WRG do not need a specific permit to dispose of such
waste which is covered by an appropriate exemption order.

This situation may change. WRG has recently applied for a permit to
dispose of High Volume – Very Low Level Waste (HV-VLLW) at the Lillyhall
Landfill site. HV-VLLW is radioactive waste that does not fall within an
exemption order and represents the lowest category of radioactive waste.
HV-VLLW is defined within the 2007 UK Government Policy on Low Level
Waste Management.

We received WRG’s application for this in 2009 and a copy of the case
that supported the application is attached for your information along
with our ‘Introductory Document’ for the application, issued to
consultees at the time. Our determination of this is on hold following
the Department for the Environment and Climate Change’s (DECC’s)
decision that the site would need European Commission (EC) approval of
an Article 37 submission under the Euratom Treaty before any permit
could be issued. Such a submission has recently been made to the EC and
a decision is likely in early 2011. At that point, and depending on the
decision of the EC, we will complete our determination of WRG’s
application and potentially issue a permit for the disposal of HV-VLLW
at the site.

Your enquiry refers to Lillyhall receiving radioactive waste from
Chapelcross nuclear power station in Scotland. The Lillyhall Landfill is
permitted to take waste from this site, and any other, providing it is
exempt radioactive waste (as described above). I suggest that the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) is best placed to answer
your query regarding the application of Scottish Policy.

Yours sincerely


Andrew Fairhurst
Nuclear Regulator
Nuclear Regulation Group (North)
Environment Agency
Ghyll Mount, Gillan Way
Penrith 40 Business Park
Penrith, Cumbria CA11 9BP
Tel: 01768 215729

—–Original Message—–
From: wildart@mariannebirkby
Sent: 16 June 2010 15:21
To: nccc, Duty Of Care
Subject: Permit – and or safety assessment/monitoring guidelines for

Dear EA,

Radiation Free Lakeland would like to have sight of the Permit – and or
assessment/monitoring guidelines for Lillyhall in Cumbria

We have been trying for two months to find out what permits have been
issued to Waste Recycling Group regarding their Lillyhall landfill
near Workington. I have written to and phoned the Environment Agency,
Cumbria County Council and Waste Recycling Group all to no avail ( some
correspondence below).

CCC say it is nothing to do with them and appear to have washed their
hands of this newly deregulated nuclear waste going into landfill.
Outrageously the original planning consents given by the council mention
nothing about radioactive wastes going into landfill – so there was no
opposition to the landfill.

WRG say they have NO permits and do not need one following the 2007 law
deregulation of nuclear wastes. They have however applied to you for a
permit for higher level wastes for Lillyhall.

Why is Lillyhall in Cumbria recieving radioactive wastes from Chapel
in Scotland when the Scottish policy on nuclear waste is to site it on
as close as possible to the nuclear site from which it arises?

The Environmental Permit or assessment/monitoring should be available
only to us but to Cumbria County Council who appear to know nothing
any such permit. How can they or anyone else safely monitor the site
without guidelines?

Radiation Free Lakeland would like to have sight of the Permit – and or
safety assessment/monitoring guidelines for Lillyhall.

We would like to have sight of these as soon as possible.

With many thanks

Marianne Birkby

on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland


Some of the Correspondence in the quest to have sight of
guidelines/permit/assessment for Lillyhall recieving radioactive wastes,

100518DF/30 RE: Lillyhall Radioactive waste.
From: “Enquiries, Unit” <>
Date: Tue, May 18, 2010 4:39 pm
To: wildart@mariannebirkby

Dear Marianne,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding radioactive waste in Lillyhall. For
your information, I have passed your query to our local External
Relations Team (Planning and Corporate Services) for advice. They will
check whether we hold this information and they will be in touch with
you shortly.

Should you wish to contact them in the meantime, their details are
below. Please quote your Enquiry Ref 100518DF/30 in your correspondence
with us.

External Relations
Planning and Corporate Services
Environment Agency
North West Region, Northern Area
Ghyll Mount
Gillan Way
Penrith 40 Business Park
CA11 9BP
Tel: 08708 506506

I trust this information will be of some assistance to you Marianne.

Kind Regards

David Fenn

The Environment Agency
National Customer Contact Centre
*08708 506506
(Ext: 711 3147
How would you rate the service you’ve received from us?

Let us know by completing our short online customer survey which is



P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
—–Original Message—–
From: wildart@mariannebirkby
Sent: 18 May 2010 13:25
To: Enquiries, Unit
Subject: Lillyhall Radioactive waste.

Dear EA,

I would like to have copies (or be directed to where I can find copies)
the documentation that approves radioactive waste in Lillyhall and the
measures in place to ensure safety.

Presumably there is a hazardous radioactive wastes license from the
Agency for Lillyhall ?
– I would like a copy of (or be directed to where I can find )that

The existing “consents” the council have provided me with are specific
composting and material processing at Lillyhall -all of which recieved
objection” ie people approved planning permissions on the understanding
that inert materials rather than radioactive materials were to be

yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby
Radiation Free Lakeland
015395 63671
“conditions in Appendix 2.

2.1 The applicant operates a waste management site at Lillyhall
waste treatment, sorting, transfer and
landfill. The site includes an area at the northern end for the
site on which permission has been
granted for composting and material processing (by crushing and
screening). The area was formerly used
as the plant area for the Potatopot opencast coal site and has its own
separate access to the public highway.
Planning permission expires on 31 January 2005.
2.2 This application seeks to extend the life of the permission until 1
June 2014, which is the expiry date of the
main landfill permission. Since summer of last year the applicant has
been composting the green waste
collected from households by both Allerdale and Copeland Borough
The operation is considered
to be working satisfactorily and the applicant is now looking to enter
into a longer term contract with the
councils and to make improvements to the facility.
2.3 The site is also used to process sandstone rock excavated as part of
cell formation on the landfill site to
provide material for use as a drainage blanket. Increased standards
imposed by the EU Landfill Directive
have increased the thickness of the drainage blanket required from 30cm
50cm, an increase in stone
required which would place a burden on local gravel pits. Processing on
site makes the applicant self reliant
in drainage media and enables finite local gravel resources to be used
more effectively elsewhere. The
permission also permits importation of construction and demolition waste
for processing.
2.4 The applicant is not aware that the operation of this facility has
given rise to any complaints and would like
to continue its use until 1 June 2014.

3.1 Allerdale Borough Council (Environmental Health) – No objections.
3.2 Copeland Borough Council (Environmental Health). Given the scale
nature of the activity it is unlikely
to adversely affect persons working or living in the Council’s area. No
adverse observations.
3.3 Distington Parish Council – No objections.
3.4 Highway Authority – No objection

etc etc……



Lillyhall /Keekle Head Radwaste
From: wildart@mariannebirkby
Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 10:08 am
To: andrew.lockley@irwinmitchell.cok
Priority: Normal

Dear Andrew,

Cumbria County Council do not hold a copy of the Environmental Permit
Lillyhall – and appear to have washed their hands of radioactive waste
landfill saying to me on the phone : the original consents do not say
anything about radioactive waste – they don’t say it can’t go in !

The head person at CCC to speak to is off till Monday.

I have sent requests to the Environment Agency for the permits etc for

Still sending out feelers for the legal aid option

Kind regards,

Radiation Free Lakeland


—————————- Original Message
Subject: RE: Lillyhall /Keekle Head Radwaste
From: “Long, Nick” <>
Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 9:15 am
To: wildart@mariannebirkby
Cc: “Pell, John” <>

The Lillyhall landfill site is not owned or run by Cumbria County
Council. It is run by a private company – WRG. There might be a copy of
a past Licence issued by the Environment Agency on our planning
application files though this is unlikely and you will have to inspect
the files for yourself. A copy of the Licence for this site may be
available from the company.

As advised can you please direct further enquiries to Mr John Pell in
relation to the Lillyhall site.

There is another landfill site at Lillyhall known as Distington because
it overlaps into Copeland District. This is due to close by the end of
this year. This site is run by CWM which is a wholly owned ‘arms length’
company of Cumbria CC. You may have not been correctly informed as to
the separation of the two sites.

The issue of what used to be known as a Waste Management Licence and is
now replaced with what is called an Environmental Permit has been the
statutory responsibility of the Environment Agency since it’s formation
in 1996. As advised you will be best served by contacting them direct
for copies of these documents.
Nick Long
—–Original Message—–
Sent: 18 May 2010 19:25
To: Long, Nick
Subject: RE: Lillyhall /Keekle Head Radwaste

Dear Mr Long,

Thank you for the information.

It is very strange that the County Council does not hold a copy of the
Environmental Permit issued to the County Council for Lillyhall – is
that usual practice?

We would like to see the Environmental Permit document along with any
licensing for Lillyhall.

Also we would like to have copies of the planning permission decision
notices for Lillyhall that relate to hazardous waste substances and if
these could be e-mailed free of charge we would very much appreciate it.

yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby
on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland




The Planning Application number is:


Application No. 2/04/9010 District Allerdale

Applicant Alco Waste Management Parish Winscales Joseph Noble Road
Lillyhall Date of Receipt 26 April 2004 Workington

PROPOSAL Planning application for time extension to composting and
material processing area; Land at Lillyhall Landfill Site, Lillyhall,


> Dear Ms Birkby
> The information set out below does not give me the planning
> application /permission reference numbers which should be included in
> the actual report, extracts from which are below. If these extracts
> are taken from the links on the attached e-mails further below then
> the links will also lead to the documents that contain specific
> reference to the planning application/permission numbers.
> I can confirm that the County Council will not have a copy of the
> Environment Agency Environmental Permit issued for the Lillyhall site.
> You will have to contact the Environment Agency directly to see if a
> copy can be obtained. The only contact name I can give is Amy Heys,
> who is based at the Penrith office. As advised over the telephone
> today the Environment Agency officers are reluctant to release their
> direct dial telephone numbers so I suggest you use the e-mail which
> should be addressed to:
> and marked FAO Amy Heys.
> I understand that you are concerned as to the legal status of any
> consent that may approve the deposit of radioactive waste at the
> Lillyhall landfill site. As advised over the phone, once the
> application/permission numbers are made known it can be arranged for
> you to have the opportunity to inspect these at our offices. If you
> could suggest some dates that would most suit you this would be
> Once the numbers are known it is possible that copies of the planning
> permission decision notices could be e-mailed to you free of charge.
> You will see that I have circulated this e-mail to John Pell who
> personally knows the Lillyhall site and it’s history as well as the
> status of deposition of radioactive waste. He can be contacted direct
> on
> 01539 713421 and will be available from Monday May 24th. He will be
> able to advise as to the status and effect of the permissions and any
> conditions.
> Your subject heading also includes the matter of Keekle Head. This is
> currently the subject of a planning application which has yet to be
> determined. The application details can be accessed via the County
> Council website. This planning application reference number is
> 4/10/9001. Alternatively a hard copy of the application documents will

> be available for inspection at Copeland Borough Council offices. If
> you wish to discuss any details of the application at Keekle Head, the

> case officer is Mrs Rachel Brophy who can be contacted on 01539
> Nick Long
> Area Team Leader – Development Control
> —–Original Message—–
> From: wildart@mariannebirkby
> Sent: 18 May 2010 13:11
> To: Long, Nick
> Subject: Lillyhall /Keekle Head Radwaste
> Dear Nick,
> Thank you for taking the time to talk to me. I have attached below
> the “consents” for Lillyhall.
> I would like to have copies (or be directed to where I can find
> copies) of the documentation that approves radioactive waste in
> Lillyhall and the measures in place to ensure safety.
> Presumably the Council is in possession of a license from the
> Environment Agency for Lillyhall ?
> – I would like a copy of (or be directed to where I can find )that
> license.
> The existing “consents” are specific to composting and material
> processing which has recieved “no objection” ie inert materials.
> yours sincerely,
> Marianne Birkby
> Radiation Free Lakeland


Planning Application Lillyhall Landfill site

Hi Marianne


Please find the links to the report and the minutes from the meeting
held on 27 May 2004





Kind Regards,




Janine Hounslow

Senior Democratic Services Officer

Legal & Democratic Services

Cumbria County Council

The Courts

Carlisle, CA3 8NA


Tel: 01228 226906


Radioactive Waste Dump is Born without Fanfare or Fuss – the banality of evil

Image: Protestors outside County Offices - this issue has been hidden by the media and given no attention by national mainstream environmental groups  - why is this when the proposed radioactive and chemical discharges to groundwaters are of a magnitude never before seen.
Image: Protestors outside County Offices – this issue has been hidden by the media and given no attention by national mainstream environmental groups – why is this when the proposed radioactive and chemical discharges to groundwaters are of a magnitude never before seen.
Today in Kendal without any fanfare or any media fuss Lillyhall Landfill was given the go ahead to dump High Volumes of so called Very Low Level wastes – this will increase with more devious permissions by the Environment Agency to Low Level waste – Intermediate Waste and no doubt ultimately a Radioactive Waste Incinerator without so much as a by your leave to councillors or the public.
Councillors say the decision is “out of their hands” as the Environment Agency has already given Lillyhall a permit to dump “exempt” and High Volume Very Low Level radioactive wastes- not quite true the Council could have and SHOULD HAVE refused an extension to the life of this landfill.  The council could engage the services of a more ethical operator who does not take lucrative government contracts to dump radioactive wastes alongside household waste.  The option to refuse the extension to the permit was not even discussed.
One thing is for sure – the Environment Agency are supposed to be an autonomous environmental watchdog looking after the public’s health and well being.  In practise they look like an increasingly wheedling poodle-like tool of government who will carry on giving ever nastier permits UNLESS the Gate is Locked on the dispersal of nuclear wastes to the environment.
The following is taken from handwritten notes during the meeting – any mistakes are mine.
Alan Clark – Chair:  This committee is concerned with the extension to the life of the landfill and not concerned with nuclear waste
Marianne Birkby on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland:  (Delivery of 153 letters – more delivered separately)
The good news is that Cumbrians have done well at reducing, reusing and recycling their waste, so much so that there is a large spare capacity at Lillyhall landfill.  The bad news is that the nuclear industry want to fill that spare capacity with radioactive waste.  We understand that councillors feel as though they are powerless and that decisions are taken away from them in this matter as the Environment Agency has already granted a permit to Lillyhall to accept High Volumes of Low Level Radioactive wastes.  The European Union is already calling Lillyhall a Radioactive Waste Repository  with planned routine releases of radiation to groundwaters – well that is news to most people in Cumbria.  The Council have advised setting a limit on the waste at 200bq a gm – This is not good enough – this is the amount there is an admitted adverse risk to health (EA Kingscliffe evidence).  Councillors have a voice and they should use it – they have the wherewithal whether or not to extend the permits for this landfill – or whether to bring in new operators  who will guarantee not to dump radioactive waste. Lock the Gate on nuclear waste in landfill
Irene Sanderson – Cumbrian:  To bury toxic material in a hole in the ground is a technique with a rather poor record (think of Dounreay) It should not be a first choice  or even a choice at all.  In particular, the danger presented by any low level radioactive waste remains controversial. Some experts dismiss it as almost negligible others consider it to be significant.  Certainly the standards for exposure to radioactivity have become stricter over the last decades, which would seem to indicate that at some time in the future  it will become unthinkable to dispose of radioactive materials in this way (Irish Sea).  Location of the site 1.6 miles from Distington Community School and Beckstone Primary School and St Mary’s Catholic School is far from ideal -why should this site be chosen.  It seems to me that the answer to this question is a mixture of convenience (site already exists and is closish to Sellafield) and political feasibility (that is, there is more political support of the nuclear industry than in other areas) Neither of these reasons is adequate.  More worringly if the hurdle of local opposition can be overcome more toxic material will be on the way “it is proposed to allow an increase in the volume of material to be limited to 200bq a gram until the permit is amended by the Environment Agency…” ” The applicant proposal would include the disposal of wastes up to 400bq/g i.e. that which falls within the lower end of Higher Activity Low Level Waste…”  So in summary, wrong disposal technique, wrong site, wrong reasons and a worrying future.
David Penney Cumbria and Lancashire Area CND ( Irene spoke): Our main objection is based on the fact that sustained exposure to any level of radioactive waste is potentially dangerous and highly damaging to human health and the environmentHiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011) demonstrate the long term impact of radiation and indicate that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation over a sustained period.   
Harry Doloughan – West Cumbrian:  I am totally against any grade of contaminated nuclear waste being buried anywhere, other than the appropriate tip at Drigg which has many years of space left.  Also more land available in Drigg area.  If anything of value is spotted going into this unsafe tip there is a good chance it will come out again.  The word of the nuclear industry cannot be trusted this has been proved time and again.   We already have contaminated nuclear waste coming to the Studsvik plant in the same area.   Stop now before the whole area is contaminated
Alison Denwood – Harrington resident: (Delivered 130 letters collected in an hour or so in Workington)  In Harrington people DO NOT want this.  Groundwater from Distington Beck flows right under our houses – will it be contaminated?  There is no faith in the industry.  Lillyhall is on a high site and the water flows down – the waste is to be dumped in tipper trucks and how will it be monitored?  The seagulls from the landfill site fly over our houses, our gardens our cars, will their poo be contaminated? Children and dogs play in Distington Beck in the summer – what about their health and safety?   There is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation –  no guarantees to future generations.  a friend who worked at Sellafield as an industrial painter died in his twenties…People are put at risk when money is the bottom line.  The Council’s environmental policy says that it will enhance and maintain quality of life and the environment.
OPERATORS – Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas FCC
Manager: We have 35 staff on site.  There is a Liquid Treatment Plant, Recycling and Transport of wastes for customers.  We have environmental permits – and a DW number for every consignment.  There is a lot of documentation and checks to comply with our permitting.  Every 5 vehicles is sampled. Proceedures have to be followed. We have discharge consents from United Utilities and the Environment Agency.
The existing planning permission and permit is closely regulated by the Environment Agency and we are one of the top companies in the UK.  There is a big change in the way the county deals with waste.  We cannot leave the landfill half finished we need to drain and restore it.
John McCreesh:  the Chairs opening remarks are helpful, the comments made by protestors are based on the original document and not the one we have in front of us.  As far as we are aware no Very Low Level Waste has been accepted.  Our site visit showed this is a big hole in the ground… need to ensure the site is restored.   No protest from local residents ( I think this is what he said  ).  
Anthony Markley:  Has problems with tipping nuclear waste – people do not want nuclear waste in landfill. Nuclear waste should stay on the sites of production.  Lillyhall is not a nuclear licensed site – this will open the door to nuclear waste in Lillyhall.
CHAIR Alan Clark:  To remind you this is NOT about nuclear waste it is about an extension to the life of Lillyhall landfill.
Anthony Markley:  I will not put my name to a nuclear site at Lillyhall.
Gerald Humes: There has to be a facility for nuclear waste.  When Keekle Head was turned down people were overjoyed – can officers tell me what would have happened should Keekle Head have been accepted
OFFICER: There is a need to satisfy need for nuclear waste disposal.  Had Keekle Head started there would be increased capacity.  There is an element of low level waste that cannot be accommodated anywhere else in the county.
Gerald Humes:  We are being asked to extend the life time of Lillyhall with the caveat that higher level waste will be disposed of at this site.  This would be a stigma on our communities.  The people thought Keekle Head had given some respite now it has come back to haunt us.  Drigg is the place to build this.  I am for nuclear but this is an inappropriate site this application should be deferred until we get an idea of what intentions are for this site.
Willlie Whalen: We are told we should not preempt decisions but we are also told there is to be a consultation on High Volume Very Low Level Wastes going into landfill.  Then we are told we need to make a decision today.  This puts us in a difficult place.
CHAIR, Alan Clark:  This is not about nuclear and if we said no and it goes to the Inspector we would lose as in Kingscliffe..
Gerald Humes: The system is putting us in a difficult situation…
CHAIR. Alan Clark:  The application needs to be judged as it is which is nothing to do with nuclear but an extension of the permit
Joe Holliday:  You’ve said the application is nothing to do with nuclear but if part of this permit extends to the permission to put very low level wastes into landfill then it does apply to nuclear.  If we give permission we are allowing an extension of time after 2014 we are extending  for low level waste permits.  If we extend the life of the landfill it affects nuclear.
Roger Bingham:  People are concerned about this.  I am concerned about extending the life of the site even without nuclear.  This is a blighted site and it needs restoration I am not in favour of this application.
Hilary Carrick:  This decision falls between two systems of regulation and this committee has planning constraints.  I have concerns as this site is going more and more towards nuclear.  It strikes me  that if this is granted this permit for Very Low Level Waste disposal will run into bigger concerns with potential increased applications – that is not within the remit of this planning committee.  What are the health implications?
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: Lillyhall is in accordance with govnt policy of 2007.  Guidance is in line with international guidelines.  Dose targets are dependant on guidance designed to be precautionary in nature.
Alan Toole:  You cannot say it is not linked to nuclear – what about monitoring problems with the Environment Agency overstretched and lack of staffing – what sort of monitoring would happen?
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: We would ensure regular monitoring by enforcement action.  The operators would send us documentation on a quarterly basis and the Envrionment Agency would monitor groundwater at the moment there is no monitoring because the site does not accept High Volume Low Level Wastes.
Bert Richardson: The cart is being put before the horse.  No issue with the extension of the landfill but there is Very Low Level in the first section of the document and then it goes on to Low Level.  Are we playing Russian Roulette?  I am not prepared to put peoples future at risk.
OFFICER:  The reason it goes on to Low Level is that the document is taking account of the variations of the permitting.  There are two permitting regimes tied to each other.
John McCreesh:  There should be a condition on the volumes of HVVLLW
Frank Irving Morgan:  Sellafield has its own facilities on site for Very Low and Low Level wastes why not utilise this?   Also can any level of membrane as at Lillyhall contain the kind of solid wastes proposed for Lillyhall?
OFFICER: Asbestos cannot be buried on the Sellafield site it is currently going to Drigg or elsewhere in the country  (!!!)
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:  the majority of waste will be in drums or bags for managing this the operator has prime responsibility with mountains of data sent to the EA on a quarterly basis.  ( WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?)
Frank Irving Morgan: The Environment Agency are inhibited in doing a profession job by financial constraints.  The VLLW has previously been accommodated at Drigg where else does it go?
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:  Drigg, Kingscliffe and Clifton Marsh for Springfields and Capenhurst – the limit for all is 200bq g
Frank Irving Morgan: I feel for the operators, we are presented with a premature application – can they come back with a permit fully approved re nuclear and exactly what the proposal is  – as there is extreme concern that this is like signing a blank cheque.
CHAIR, Alan Clark: I think the operators want a decision today  (!!!!)
Tony Markley:  I do not want to see any more nuclear waste coming to the site – we need to propose that there is no problem with an extension but not for nuclear waste
Gerald Humes: we need more information before making this decision
OFFICER: The lawyers have told us that we cannot restrict the levels of waste going to this site because the permit has been given by the Environment Agency
The meeting then descended into farce with an amendment proposed that the site should “only” receive HVVLLW  – there was confusion as to who was voting for what with members who had vehemently opposed nuclear waste going into landfill seemingly putting their hands up to support it.
The operators were sat behind the protestors and they weren’t half chuffed at the result!
The council had the opportunity to say no to the extension to the permit,  they could have employed new operators who are not taking the governments nuclear £ to disperse radioactive cack to the environment
Now the floodgates will open to dump ever increasing radioactive (and chemical)  releases to our groundwaters  unless ………..


Roe Deer Fawn - loves Life!
Roe Deer Fawn – loves Life!
Sellafield "Good Neighbour"
Sellafield “Good Neighbour”
Should the Public Really Start to Worry Now!
Should the Public Really Start to Worry Now!
Meet outside CALDER GATE at 1pm (till 3pm)Sellafield management have ‘accidentally’ trapped a herd of roe deer in-between an old and new security fence. They now plan to cull instead of taking a section of fence down and gently walking the deer out. Sellafield’s rigid refusal to look at solutions other than a blanket cull is brutal. Campaigners will be inviting RSPCA officers to the demonstration on sunday to see the fence for themselves.Sellafield workers oppose the cull.
Anti-nuclear activists oppose the cull.
Animal Rights activists oppose the cull.
The Public oppose the cull.

What is wrong with the Sellafield management?

What have they got to hide?

Why Not Open one of the (meaningless) fences?

press coverage:

Petitions and More info:


We won't be dumped on
We won’t be dumped on





Radiation Free Lakeland have sent the below to the Development Control Committee members of Cumbria County Council.

We will be staging a Demo outside County Hall, Kendal on Wednesday before the meeting  – 10am – meeting begins at 11am

please join us in saying NO to Nuke Waste in Landfill!

more info:

LETTER TO COUNTY COUNCILLORS- Development Control Committee

Dear Councillor,

Radiation Free Lakeland will be delivering over 150 letters to you at Wednesday’s Development Control meeting (more being sent separately)

The letters urge you, despite the license given by the Environment Agency, not to permit the Spanish operators FCC to deliver High Volume Very Low Level Radioactive wastes to Lillyhall.  This waste would be at the top end of activity for low level radioactive wastes. Lillyhall is already receiving so called “exempt” radioactive wastes and this crazy deregulation is what has led to Sellafield’s ‘mistake’ in dumping three bags of low level and one bag of intermediate level radioactive waste into Lillyhall.

The bags were transported unknowingly by the carrier and handled unknowingly by the landfill workers and dumped above ground where one bag split open. It was pointed out in court that the level of radioactivity was enough to be cancer causing. Sellafield said it was “highly unlikely” to be a danger to the public or the workers. That is unacceptable and the judge in the case agreed and fined Sellafield £700,000 out of the public purse.

Radiation Free Lakeland have consistently opposed and campaigned for the “exempt” deregulation to be overturned. Now as well as “exempt” radioactive waste, the plan is for Lillyhall to receive High Volumes of so called Very Low Level Wastes from for example Chapel Cross. Councillors feel quite rightly that this important issue is being taken out their hands from above by the Environment Agency and the European Union. However, Councillors have a duty to represent their constituents, not government or the European Union and their constituents do not want radioactive wastes to be routinely dumped in landfill.

Radiation Free Lakeland would urge you to have a look at the letters below from the Environment Agency and from DECC. The letters provide answers to Freedom of Information questions and make grim reading for all Cumbrians who are concerned about “release of radioactivity to groundwaters.”

The Environment Agency and DECC assure us that no monitoring is necessary for “exempt” wastes while the high volume wastes will be monitored “from groundwater boreholes on site every 3 months, sample Distington Beck twice a year and, on an annual basis, sample grass/herbage next to the site boundary at specified locations. All samples will be analysed for radioactivity, including total alphas and betas, tritium and gamma spectrometric analysis. The operator is required to report their results to us, including all radionuclides detected by gamma spectrometric analysis”.

So the operators will be doing the sampling!

Meanwhile The Euratom 37 Directive goes on to say that “Although the release of radioactivity in liquid effluent from the site is limited by the conditions placed on the radionuclide inventory in the waste which is received for disposal, suitable trigger levels and an action plan to be implemented in the event of contamination arising from the site will be clearly set out”.


Ed Davey, the responsible Secretary of State’s reply assures campaigners that “The proposal was also subject to Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty which requires Member States to provide the Commission with general data so that they may give an opinion on whether the proposal is likely to have an impact on other Member States. The opinion of the Commission in this case was that it would not. The Commission visited the site in 2013 and reported that they were content with what they saw.”

WE ARE NOT CONTENT WITH WHAT WE SEE which is the dispersal of radioactivity to our environment.

This Committee has the wherewithal to refuse the Spanish owned operator, FCC, an extension to their permit and instead to bring in operators who are not looking to chase lucrative government contracts in the burying of radioactive wastes in our landfill close to villages and towns. Please ensure that Decommissioning of nuclear sites does not mean Dispersal to the environment but the containment of waste on sites where the waste (which includes building rubble, soil etc) has been produced.

Yours Sincerely,

Marianne Birkby

Radiation Free Lakeland

Decommissioning and Towards a Safer Cumbria

Freedom of Information Answers to Radiation Free Lakeland below and attached

From: “Tim Farron MP” <>

Subject: TF Date: Tue, December 24, 2013 7:32 am To: “‘marianne Birkby'”

Our Ref: Birk004/35/ag 24 December 2013

Dear Marianne

Please find attached the response from the Environment Agency to the letter that I wrote on your behalf with regard to the provision for waste at Lillyhall. With best wishes

Yours sincerely Tim Farron MP

From: NW Correspondence Unit, []

Sent: 20 December 2013 11:34 To:

Subject: RE: Tim Farron – Birk004/35/ag

Dear Mr Farron,

We have looked into the matter you raised with us on behalf of your constituent in your email of 11 December.

Please find the responses to each of your points below. In addition, we would be happy to meet you and your constituent if you feel this would be of use. We would be able to explain more fully how landfills are regulated and monitored.

Please will you provide me with the comprehensive answers to the following questions under the Freedom of Information Act: –

1. Sight of all evidence and records of the monitoring of Lillyhall landfill’s receipt of “exempt” high volume radioactive wastes from 2009 to 2013.

The receipt of radioactive waste which is ‘exempt’ is not specifically monitored at Lillyhall landfill, nor at any other landfill at which it may be received. The definition of ‘exempt’ radioactive waste means that it is exempted from the need for specific permitting but that it must be controlled in accordance with the requirements set out in the legislation. Low volumes of Very Low Level Radioactive Waste (VLLW) is ‘exempt’ from the need for permitting on the basis of its co-disposal with non-radioactive waste at landfill. This exemption also means that the waste is not required to be ‘labelled’ as radioactive waste. As a result operators of landfills, including that of the Lillyhall Landfill, are not required to undertake any specific monitoring of the receipt of low volumes of VLLW and would not be able to distinguish it from any other receipt of waste unless otherwise informed by the waste consignor. High volumes of radioactive waste are not ‘exempted’ given that the same level of mixing with non-radioactive waste cannot be assumed. For that reason sites must be permitted to accept, for disposal, High Volume Very Low Level Radioactive Waste (HV-VLLW). The Lillyhall Landfill has been permitted since April 2011 to accept HV-VLLW for disposal. In accordance with the conditions of the permit, the operator is required to record all receipts of such waste, including date of delivery, its source, the activity of the waste, physical and chemical composition and the quantity. To-date the operator has not received any HV-VLLW for disposal and so no such records exist.

2. Details of the monitoring of Distington Beck and soil samples 2009 – 2013

It has been agreed with the site operator that they did not have to undertake the environmental monitoring of radioactivity as required by the permit until the site had commenced accepting waste under the permit (i.e. the HV-VLLW referred to above). Other, non-radiological monitoring data is available for Distington Beck in accordance with the permit requirements for a conventional landfill site, irrespective of the fact that this might include receipt of ‘exempt’ radioactive waste. This is because the risk of radioactivity in the environment as a result of disposals of ‘exempt’ radioactive waste have been assessed in the development of the legislation to be negligible. Given that we understand your interest is in the disposal and monitoring of radioactive waste we have not provided any data on the results of the non-radiological monitoring but this can be made available should you require it. Once the operator of the Lillyhall Landfill accepts HV-VLLW for disposal, under the conditions of its radioactive substances permit, they will be required to: take samples from groundwater boreholes on site every 3 months, sample Distington Beck twice a year and, on an annual basis, sample grass/herbage next to the site boundary at specified locations. All samples will be analysed for radioactivity, including total alphas and betas, tritium and gamma spectrometric analysis. The operator is required to report their results to us, including all radionuclides detected by gamma spectrometric analysis.

3. Details of the monitoring of the “controlled release of radioactivity to groundwaters” 2009 -2013

As described above, there is no monitoring of the ‘controlled release of radioactivity to groundwaters’ undertaken at the Lillyhall Landfill site at present. The requirement for groundwater monitoring will be triggered by the receipt of HV-VLLW at the site for disposal, in accordance with the requirements of the permit. The following report may be of interest to you. It is the product of an independent review of the proposed arrangements at the site, undertaken as part of vertification activities under the terms of Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty. (Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty requires that each Member State shall establish the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in air, water and soil and to ensure compliance with the basic safety standards. Article 35 also gives the European Commission (EC) the right of access to such facilities in order that it may verify their operation and efficiency. The Radiation Protection Unit (ENER D.4) of the EC’s Directorate-General for Energy (DG ENER) is responsible for undertaking these verifications.) eport_uk_2011.pdf

Pages 22-25 of the report describe the arrangements the verification team identified for the management and disposal of HV-VLLW at the site. This covers their consideration of the proposals for monitoring, including groundwater monitoring, upon receipt of any radioactive waste for disposal under the terms of the permit. The report concludes that ‘on the assumption that environmental monitoring at the facility will be carried out as described to the verification team, the visit does not give rise to suggestions or recommendations’.

Many thanks,


Jane Phillips Customers and Engagement Team

more info

Radiation leak detected at New Mexico military nuclear waste plant – an annotated graphic

And this radioactive cesspool is held up by the UK government as a wonderful example of geological dumping of nuclear waste…
Come On!!!

Engineering & Technology magazine

Experts are monitoring America’s only deep geological nuclear waste dump after an airborne radiation alert.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) said specialists were assessing a “possible radiological event” at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico.

According to the DOE, an air monitor detected radiation on the plant’s underground levels at 11.30pm local time last Friday.

Officials say no employees were working underground at the time and those on the surface have been sheltered in place as a precaution. They say nobody has been found to be contaminated.

WIPP is the nation’s first and only deep geological nuclear waste dump, taking plutonium-contaminated material from Los Alamos National Laboratory and other government nuclear projects.

The incident comes 10 days after an underground truck fire at the plant prompted an evacuation.

Energy Department spokesman Roger Nelson said the 139 workers above ground were told to stay where they…

View original post 44 more words


Beneath the Dark Mountain, lies the Dark Secret... the earth is Unearth - and can never be unearthed.
Beneath the Dark Mountain, lies the Dark Secret… the earth is Unearth – and can never be unearthed.


TODAY Workington made a stand against higher activity low level nuclear waste arriving in tipper trucks to be dumped in plastic bin bags into Lillyhall landfill.

Over 100 people stopped to sign letters to Cumbria County Council  “why should we have it on our door step!” was the cry !

Secretary of State Ed Davey has told campaigners that the landfill site has already been awarded a permit by the Environment Agency (over the heads of local councillors and the public) to take High Volumes of building rubble from decommissioning activities “primarily from  Sellafield”.  Asbestos laced with tritium will also be arriving from Chapel Cross in Scotland with a “controlled release of radioactivity to ground waters.”   This is acceptable  to government so long as it does not leak to other European countries:   “The proposal was also subject to Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty which requires Member States to provide the Commission with general data so that they may give an opinion on whether the proposal is likely to have an impact on other Member States.  The opinion of the Commission in this case was that it would not.  The Commission visited the site in 2013 and reported that they were content with what they saw.”   WE ARE NOT CONTENT WITH WHAT WE SEE  which is the dispersal of radioactivity to our environment by all means possible including dumping radioactive wastes into landfill.



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 in Kendal on 26th Feb. 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:

NOTE: The deadline to speak at next weeks meeting is the end of this week- the more people who speak the better chance we have of stopping this.

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

Lillyhall has already been given a permit to receive “exempt” High Volume Very Low Level Radioactive waste previously banned from all landfill.

Radiation Free Lakeland have been campaigning for a change to the law allowing this to happen – a crazy state of affairs which has led to Sellafield dumping low level and intermediate level waste into Lillyhall landfill.

Now the plan is to put even higher activity waste into a landfill that was previously clear of all (but Naturally Occurring) Radioactive Materials.

West Cumbrians have been conscientiously reducing, reusing and recycling which, say the company running the landfill, means that there is “spare capacity” of 1.4 million cubic metres. Of course the companies concerned will receive far greater lucrative government contracts to dump nuclear waste and clear the decks for new build, than for dumping domestic waste.

This landfill is less than half a mile from the flag ship Energus centre and Nuclear Academy (also known locally as the Stepford Academy) for children of secondary school age.

Please write objecting to this plan to dump Higher Activity Low Level Radioactive Wastes into Lillyhall landfill uptill the year 2029.

Reasons to Object (there are many more – just a few here)

* There is no monitoring once the radioactive waste leaves the nuclear site in tipper trucks

* There will be a “controlled release of radioactivity to groundwaters”

* Radioactive waste arrives at the site in unmarked plastic bags.

* Radioactive Waste coming into the county from, for example, Scotland

* Lillyhall landfill site is subject to water ingress/flooding

* 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

* 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!

* There is predetermination from the European Commission that Lillyhall will be the next Radioactive Waste Repository to take the pressure off Drigg.

Letter from DECC – Lillyhall Radioactive Waste Dump will not impact on Member States !

Letter from DECC- Lillyhall Radioactive Waste Dump

Free the Sellafield Deer Demo

Radiation Free Lakeland have been asked why they have got involved in what appears to be an animal welfare issue.  A fair enough question.  We got involved because the only reason the militaristic fence was put up is to “protect’ the dangerous stockpiles of nuclear waste which includes 120 tons of  weapons grade/terrorist grade plutonium.

The reason the plutonium is there is because the waste keeps on arriving at Sellafield for reprocessing thereby creating more plutonium!

If the deer were on ANY OTHER factory site in the UK then this situation would not have arisen, fences would have been opened and the deer allowed to go free.  As it is the deer are viewed as collateral damage, in much the same way as the people living in the shadow of Sellafield.

The militaristic fences are meaningless while the nuclear industry/government keep chucking radioactive waste into landfill, out to sea, into the air and even into our pots and pans through the Studsvik metal “recycling” plant at Lillyhall.  Studsvik are corporate sponsors of Cumbria Wildlife Trust  who are supporting Sellafield in the plan to cull.  The wildlife trust claims that there are too many deer in Cumbria eating up our woodlands and that actually Sellafield are doing a huge favour by culling a family of roe deer.  Ironically Cumbria Wildlife Trust spend much of their time taking young trees out of woodlands to create butterfly habitat.  Why not let the deer create butterfly habitat?  Is it because volunteers like to work up a sweat hacking trees down?

There is no excuse for culling the deer if as Sellafield say they have not entered the site and are not contaminated.

There is more information for actions to save the deer and petitions here




Greetings from Sellafield - Save the Sellafield Deer

JOIN US ON SUNDAY in between 1-3 in a RALLY to stop the proposed plan to cull a family group of roe deer trapped in the new double security fence at Sellafield.

Bring Banners Music Yourselves – the plight of the deer is a metaphor for us all.

If ANY other industry or individual were to kill deer in the CLOSED SEASON they would receive a hefty fine and or a prison sentence not so Sellafield who are it seems above the law.

Sellafield are acting illegally and brutally in this matter. As well as the RALLY ON SUNDAY we are calling for volunteers to position themselves either at Calder Gate on a daily basis to protest the culling – or more importantly to position themselves along the fence. Shooting should not take place in the knowledge that people MAY be positioned along the fence!

There is an alternative to culling and this has been proposed by

“We have volunteers experienced in such issues whom are local and would be able to encourage movement of the deer” Respect for Wildlife point out that if deer can be moved for culling purposes then why not use the same procedure for funneling them towards opened fences at the Calder Gate, wooded side of the Sellafield site. The fence could then be reinstated further in the woodland. This would leave the deer with free access to their wide ranging territory which includes the now fenced off area of woodland where they have been trapped by Sellafield.

If you cannot join us on the rally – phone, email Sellafield, Your MP, Ed Davey (DECC ordered the fence and the cull)
Your MP
Ed Davey –
DECC tel DECC 0300 060 4000


More Info and Petitions!

NO NUKE WASTE IN LANDFILL – Join us on Saturday in Kendal

Nuclear Waste : "I've Come for the Children"
Nuclear Waste : “I’ve Come for the Children”

NO NUKE WASTE IN LANDFILL – Join us on Saturday in Kendal from 11.30 to 1.30 – meet at the Bird Cage, Finkle St.

PLease join us – bring banners, music etc

We will be asking people to write to Cumbria County Council in opposition to radioactive waste being dumped into Lillyhall landfill.
To Cumbria County Council Development Control Committee,

Cumbrians have been reducing, reusing and recycling their domestic waste. Now the nuclear industry wants to fill the “spare capacity” of 1.4 million cubic metres at Lillyhall landfill with radioactive waste.
This landfill is less than half a mile from the Energus centre and Nuclear Academy for children of secondary school age. The Environment Agency has said that exposure from waste 200 bequerels a gram “would be expected to have an adverse effect on human health…” The waste proposed for Lillyhall is twice as dangerous up to 400 bequerels a gram!

• There will be a “controlled release of radioactivity to groundwaters”
• Radioactive waste would arrive at the site in unmarked plastic bags.
• Radioactive waste would come from, for example, Scotland
Please refuse permission for operators to dump ANY more radioactive waste in Lillyhall landfill,


If you cannot join us on Saturday there is more info here on how to get involved in the fight to LOCK THE GATE on nuclear waste

No Closed Season on Sellafield’s Crimes Against Deer and Us

Abandoned Roe Deer being Nurtured
Abandoned Roe Deer being Nurtured


Dear Tim,

Please could you pass on this ongoing petition to Secretary of State, Ed
Davey. There are other petitions asking the same thing – that the blanket
cull of roe deer trapped incompetently inside the new Sellafied fence is
stopped. The petitions total is in the 1000s in a very short time.

It was DECC who ordered the erection of the fence to double up on the
existing security fences around the Sellafield site. The cull is inhumane
and unethical taking place during ‘closed season’ when the deer are
heavily pregnant. The fence at the woodland should be taken down and the
original fence reinforced rather than having double fencing enclosing the
woodland and trapping the deer.

We understand the need for Sellafield to routinely cull animals on site in
an effort to contain the spread of radiation. However, if as Sellafield
says the deer have not entered the site and are not contaminated in any
way then surely a more humane solution would be to permanently remove the
new double fencing in the woodland area and instead reinforce the original
fence another way.

As well as preventing the “need” for a cull, this would be a goodwill
gesture and would benefit the whole ecosystem of the woodland.

Roe Deer …
are native to this country and part of Europe’s Rewilding project. The roe
became extinct in England during the 18th century, but survived in parts
of Scotland.

Now they are back and are a joy to see with their velvety eyes and elegant
forms. They do exaggerated leaps high in the air (pronking) when running
but not high enough to scale the new Sellafield fence trapping them. There
is a season for shooting animals. But Sellafield propose to cull these
deer out of season in February/April over 15 days, shooting approximately
one deer a day. In other words this cull will take place when the females
are likely to be carrying young.

The New Fence…
costing millions of pounds encloses woodlands previously open and
accessible to deer . The government, through the Department of Energy &
Climate Change, has ordered the second fence in, they say, the face of a
rising threat to “sensitive” installations worldwide from Al Qaeda. The
“new” fence stretches 11 miles around the Sellafield plant. Rather than
culling the deer a solution would be to remove the double fence at the
woodland allowing the deer free access. The original fence could then be
reinforced another way instead of being double at that point.

Sellafield Reprocessing Plant is…
the reason for the Government’s extreme nervousness with 120 tonne
stockpile of plutonium. Quite rightly the UK Government gets hysterical if
other countries want to produce plutonium. Plutonium is the material
necessary for nuclear bombs. Reprocessing is a toxic liability producing
ever more plutonium requiring these expanding fences manned by armed
nuclear policemen.

The bleak and awful plight of the wild deer is a metaphor for the rest of
us – the nuclear industry will give us nowhere to run.

Please ask Ed Davey to stop the cull. We will not accept the excuse that
Sellafield are giving that this is of ‘wildlife benefit’ as there are ‘too
many deer.’ This is no management exercise where the old and lame deer
are selectively culled – this is an outrageous blanket cull of a herd of
deer that any other organisation would not get away with and with so
little media attention or scrutiny.

yours sincerely,

Marianne Birkby
on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland

PETITION ( and there are many others)

British Deer Society – Close Seasons for Deer

Security fence at Sellafield

Plutonium Mountain

Roe Deer Pronking

Sellafield Statement

Sellafield Ltd Statement : Wildlife management

Sellafield’s Running Deer – Nowhere to Run