Nukiller powered submarine waste? It might be YOU!

USS Nautilus - first nuclear submarine reactor built by Westinghouse.  The same mafia who want to build three nuclear reactors near Sellafield.
USS Nautilus – first nuclear submarine reactor built by Westinghouse. The same mafia who want to build three nuclear reactors near Sellafield.

Radiation Free Lakeland endorse the statement below by Close Capenhurst

A response to the current MOD set of proposals as to where radioactive waste from decommissioned nukiller powered submarines might be stored.

The MOD is currently engaged in a public consultation about where to store the radioactive remains of twenty seven decommissioned nukiller powered submarines.

We welcome

We welcome that the MOD is to decommission twenty seven nuclear submarines.
However, that is just the start, as there are other nukiller powered
submarines in service.

We urge that all nukiller powered submarines be decommissioned.

More to come

There will eventually be seven new Astute-class nukiller powered submarines.
The first three have already been launched. The second three are currently under construction and due to go into service between 2018 and 2022. A seventh one is ordered, but is not yet under construction.

We urge that the entire Astute-class nukiller powered submarine programmer be scrapped.

The Proposed sites

The MOD has proposed that the waste from the twenty seven nukiller powered submarines be stored at a number of current nukiller facilities.
The original list of sites included Aldermaston, Burghfield, Capenhurst, Chapelcross, Devonport and Sellafield.

None of these sites are in any way suitable for this proposal.

Aldermaston and Burghfield

Aldermaston and Burghfield are where nukiller weapons are manufactured and maintained.
To store the radioactive submarine parts at these plants would only complicate the process of how we might decommission these plants.

We call for these plants to be closed down as part of the process of unilateral nukiller disarmament.

Capenhurst

With regards to the proposed storage of radioactive parts from nukiller
powered submarines at Capenhurst, there is a major problem with this idea.
The Uranium enrichment process at Capenhurst involves the use of Uranium Hexafluoride.
The Uranium is transported in to the plant, processed, stored as depleted Uranium and transported back out as Uranium enriched in the form of a Uranium Hexafluoride.

Uranium Hexafluoride is highly toxic, reacts violently with water and is corrosive to most metals.

Thus any ‘accidental’ release of Uranium Hexafluoride at Capenhurst could impact upon any radioactive waste which might be stored at the plant.

Chapelcross

Built in 1959 as a nukiller power reactor, its primary purpose was to produce weapons-grade plutonium. It has been under-going decommissioning since 2004. It therefore does not need more radioactive waste accumulating on site.

It should also be noted that the Scottish Assembly is currently debating whether to store any nukiller waste within Scotland.

Devonport

The MOD has already ruled out Devonport.

Sellafield

Sellafield should not be considered for storage of radioactive waste from submarines. The site cannot deal with the inventory of waste it already holds.
Sellafield’s links with the MOD would be reinforced by the storage of waste from nuclear submarines, this would magnify the already prime threat of terrorism at the site.

Our current concerns

The MOD’s proposal refers to a site being built which will store the
radioactive submarine waste until 2040, when the UK’s Geological Disposal Facility is planned to come into operation.
At present the exact location of any Geological Disposal Facility is still very much in question.
So any future waste from decommissioned nukiller powered submarines could be added to the 27 which are currently under discussion.
Thus there is a need to question just how large the proposed storage site might become within the next 25 to 100 years.

What is needed

It is very clear to us that the process of decommissioning nukiller powered submarines should ensure that any radioactive waste is properly dealt with, but the present MOD proposals will only add to these problems.

Thus we need to be looking for the following: –

– A safe site which is isolated from large centres of population.
– A geologically stable area.
– A secure site.
– A place where no other nukiller processing is taking place.
and
– One at which no other radioactive waste is currently stored and/or
processed.

One thought on “Nukiller powered submarine waste? It might be YOU!

  1. Thanks for giving everyone an objective heads-up on this. The info on uranium hexafluoride is especially important for most to know. However, I continue to have issues with the idea of rural lives having less value than urban lives. As well, urban lives depend on rural ones for food. I think that if a dump is near a large urban centre that they are more likely to watch it carefully. If not, the more populous got what they voted for. While sending the rest of its nuclear subs to Scotland from Devonport, the UK chicken hawks have a special bunker at Westminster finished ca 1992 to hide in and pull the trigger from. With French Thales responsible for upkeep we probably don’t have to worry about the trigger being pulled since they can’t seem to manage a battery (Dreamliner) and had some problem at Devonport too. No need to pull trigger if it might go off by accident. Maybe they are moving the active subs from Devonport to Scotland because of the nearby tax havens of Jersey-Guernsey? I also don’t buy the rural urban argument because if Scots hadn’t been removed from their land, then there would be at least 40 million, which is the estimated size of the diaspora, according to wiki. It’s probably larger. They should be allowed to return home, but are not. Removals started ca 1600 with the Border Clans – maybe earlier. This includes the Chapelcross area. The same thing happened to the Irish. This surely impacted the Cumbrian Border populations too. Westinghouse is now 60% Hitachi owned and French gov controlled GDF-Suez is in there too BTW. I wish that the French would keep with poetry, strikes, and maybe art. If they have ever been good at technology I can’t think of it, unless you count that when a TGV derailed a couple of decades ago it didn’t turn over because of the shape, but it kept going which might not be so good. Now that the Japanese are also screwing up it’s hard to think of who IS good at tech anymore. Even though Thales is located, in part, in Scotland, the French believe in training managers in Paris in their French management style and Thales is French government controlled.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s