Did We Just Stop Radioactive Waste Going Into Whitemoss Landfill? Who Knows?

The River Ribble and Radioactive Landfill
The River Ribble and Radioactive Landfill
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Make Room for Radioactive Landfill!
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Make Room for Radioactive Landfill!
Radioactive Landfill
Radioactive Landfill  “Safegrounds” SITA ppt

A while back the brilliant anti fracking campaigner Tina Louise Rothery posted on the Radiation Free Lakeland facebook page requesting help to stop the huge expansion of Whitemoss landfill. We looked at Whitemoss, near Skelmersdale and what goes into the landfill is very, very  nasty ….even without radioactive wastes.

What we found though was that Whitemoss was indeed designated for receipt of low level radioactive wastes. According to the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan for 2015: “Currently low level radioactive waste is exported to Whitemoss Landfill site in Lancashire”. So we asked Questions under Freedom of Information.   What happened next is incredible. The reply came back within 6 days not from the Department of the Environment (who we addressed the FOI to) but from Whitemoss Landfill:

Whitemoss Landfill (25 July 2015)

…

The report you refer to has been corrected to say, “Currently low level radioactive waste is exported to Clifton 
Marsh Landfill site in Lancashire.” 

Whitemoss has never accepted any low level radioactive waste from Capenhurst or any other nuclear site. 

Rob Routledge 
Whitemoss Landfill Limited”

How on earth could the Councils have got it so wrong? And would low level radioactive waste have been “accidently” tipped into Whitemoss off the back of the uncorrected Local Plan?  Is deregulated “exempt’ High Volume Low Level Radioactive Waste already going into Whitemoss and is that why the Councils said low level radioactive waste is going in?    No one it seems is asking these questions.

So where does the low level radioactive waste from uranium enrichment at Capenhurst and from nuclear fuel manufacture at Springfields go?

As the owner of Whitemoss Landfill was quick to say and the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan for 2015 has been “corrected” to say: “Currently low level radioactive waste is exported to Clifton 
Marsh Landfill site in Lancashire.”

The nuclear industry is desperate to get shot of its wastes. These wastes are from the processes gearing up to new build and from decommissioning or “clean up” of old sites.   No – one it seems is questioning this or organising to stop the tsunami of nuclear wastes going into landfill.

Certainly Radiation Free Lakeland have been doing something but not enough by any means. For example we missed this one.. an extension granted in February ..up to the year 2035 for the dumping of radioactive wastes in Clifton Marsh landfill on the River Ribble: “The council noted that Clifton Marsh accepted low level radioactive wastes and that over the life of the extended site, LLW waste would become a greater proportion of the total waste disposed of at the site due to the reduction in household waste. However, the controls within the permit would continue to ensure that there would be no detriment to safety. The site was one of only four in the country licensed to accept LLW waste and, therefore, was strategically important.

At present input rates of 50,000 tonnes a year, only half the remaining capacity would be filled by 2035. To address this, Sita proposed a condition providing for five-yearly reviews of void space and the submission of revised restoration scheme if it became clear that restoration would not be achieved by the end date.

Proposal: Extension of time for landraising
Site: Clifton Marsh landfill site, Preston New Road, Preston
Authority: Lancashire”

Why is this radioactive poisoning of our watercourses, our land, our DNA being universally ignored? It is happening right NOW!!

Is it because people are not constantly reminded by NGOs or London University led group: Extreme Energy, to be on their guard against irreversible nuclear pollution of their water supplies? (London University’s experimental nuclear reactor is dumped in Drigg, Cumbria)

Radioactive pollution will not be removed by boiling.

  • Hazardous landfill is nasty – Radioactive Landfill is nasty with plutonium knobs on ….the European Commission helpfully tell us that: “radioactive gases will emanate from the disposal facility; these are not liable to affect the health of the population of another Member State”

What can we do?

….RESIST !    BAN NEW NUCLEAR!

CONTAIN WASTES ON EXISTING NUCLEAR SITES – NO DISPERSAL TO THE ENVIRONMENT  (note:  medical wastes are a tiny, tiny fraction of nuclear wastes – the radioactive wastes come from all parts of the nuclear chain from enrichment to reprocessing and decommissioning)

http://council.lancashire.gov.uk/documents/s57282/Clifton%20Marsh.pdf

WHAT THE EUROPEAN COMMSSION SAYS ABOUT LILLYHALL AND CLIFTON MARSH LANDFILLS

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:077:0001:0002:EN:PDF

EN

11.3.2011 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C77/1

I

(Resolutions, recommendations and opinions)

OPINIONS EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMISSION OPINION

of 10 March 2011

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Lillyhall Very Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, located in Cumbria, United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2011/C 77/01)

On 1 September 2010, the European Commission received from the British Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Lillyhall Very Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.

On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 8 October 2010 and provided by the British authorities on 13 December 2010, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

  1. The distance between the disposal facility and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Ireland, is 180 km.
  2. During the disposal facility’s operational period:
    • —  radioactive waste will be emplaced in the disposal facility without intention of retrieval,
    • —  the disposal facility will not be subject to a discharge authorisation for liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. However, radioactive gases will emanate from the disposal facility; these are not liable to affect the health of the population of another Member State,
    • —  in the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population.
  3. After the disposal facility’s operational period: 
The measures envisaged for the final closure of the disposal facility as described in the General Data, provide reliance that the conclusions under point 2 above will remain valid in the long term.

EN

C 77/2

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2011

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the Lillyhall Very Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in the United Kingdom, during its normal operational life and after its final closure, as well as in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 10 March 2011.

For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:077:0003:0003:EN:PDF

EN

11.3.2011 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion C77/3

COMMISSION OPINION

of 10 March 2011

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Clifton Marsh Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, located in Lancashire, United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2011/C 77/02)

On 23 September 2010, the European Commission received from the British Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the Clifton Marsh Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.

On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 11 October 2010 and provided by the British authorities on 25 November 2010, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

  1. The distance between the disposal facility and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Ireland, is 180 km.
  2. During the disposal facility’s operational period:
    • —  radioactive waste will be emplaced in the disposal facility without intention of retrieval,
    • —  the disposal facility will not be subject to a discharge authorisation for liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. However, radioactive gases will emanate from the disposal facility; these are not liable to affect the health of the population of another Member State,
    • —  in the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population.
  3. After the disposal facility’s operational period: 
The measures envisaged for the final closure of the disposal facility as described in the General Data, provide reliance that the conclusions under point 2 above will remain valid in the long term.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the Clifton Marsh Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in the United Kingdom, during its normal operational life and after its final closure, as well as in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 10 March 2011.

For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission

13 thoughts on “Did We Just Stop Radioactive Waste Going Into Whitemoss Landfill? Who Knows?

  1. People need to have a look at the numbers you list! A GBq (Giga-becquerel) is 9 zeros! That’s 1,000,000,000 becquerels (radioactive emissions per second!). And, Plutonium 241, half-life 14 years, becomes the very dangerous Americium 241, half life 432.6 years. Plutonium (Pu) 241 is a trick they love to play, calling it short-lived. Already, with a half-life of 14 years it will be around for over 100 years but half life 432.6 years is over 4,000 years. How many more tricks like this are in the list? Plus, others are allowed which are known not to be short-lived. The wet climate makes all of this move into the greater environment more quickly.

  2. Reblogged this on Mining Awareness Plus and commented:
    Up to 2,000,000,000,000 radioactive emissions per second of deadly Pu 241, half-life 14 years, which becomes deadly Am 241, half life 432 years, legally to the landfill each year. The half-lives in the body are 20 to 50 yrs. Pu 241 is but one of many dangerous radionuclides going legally to landfill.

  3. Alone, 2,000 GBq of Pu 241 would lead to an estimated 40,000 excess, additional, cancers, since Pu 241 becomes Am 241. Based on Am 241 ingestion coefficients for the general public, given in ICRP 119, 2,000 Gigabecquerels of Americium (Am) 241 (2,000,000,000,000) would result in an estimated 40,000 cancers, assuming 1 cancer per 10,000 Bq (see BEIR report). According to BEIR, approximately half of these would die. According to some German and British experts, the numbers of cancer deaths are double (and cancer numbers as well). So, an estimated 40,000 to 80,000 cancers. If they dump this amount for 30 years, then multiply by 30 or 1.2 million cancers. This is ONLY for ingestion of Am241, and excludes the other stuff, and someone (and/or some animal) will ingest it sooner or later, especially the long lived Am 241. This is spread out over more than 4,000 years so about 10 per year, which can easily be hidden, which is why they are getting by with this! If they dump for 30 years, it becomes 300 per year, which still slips by unnoticed. 2,000 GBq of Pu 241 leads to 960 excess cancers, apparently in addition to this, if it escapes before it turns into Americium. This works out to be around 10 per year for 100 years and again 300 per year if they dump for 30 years. Nonetheless, the 2,000,000,000,000 radioactive emissions are each like a bullet, which theoretically can result in cancer or other genetic damage. The damage from alpha emitters, such as Am 241, is more difficult to repair. ICRP dose coefficients are at the following link. They are given in Sievert per Becquerels. Note that there are 1,000 millisieverts (mSv) per Sievert (Sv) and it must be converted, if you want it in millisieverts: http://www.icrp.org/docs/P%20119%20JAICRP%2041(s)%20Compendium%20of%20Dose%20Coefficients%20based%20on%20ICRP%20Publication%2060.pdf The max annual dose (excluding medical and background) is supposed to be 1 mSv per year, according to the ICRP, to put into perspective, but which over a life-time still leads to approximately 1% cancer rate, according to US BEIR (i.e. 1,000 out of a population of 100,000) and double that according to some European experts. Two of us have worked this out, so I believe it is correct. Considering that one becquerel is like a bullet it seems on the low side and not on the high side!

  4. Thanks for your leadership on this. This is criminal and appears crooked. I didn’t notice that if you click there is this link by GDF-Suez: http://www.safegrounds.com/pdfs/W5_PH_May11.pdf To help people work out what it means, they say for instance 200 Bq/gram, but that’s 200,000 Bq per kg. And, they are speaking of metric tonnes so that’s 200,000,000 Bq per tonne. They also say upper limit at one point and average at another. Which is it? And, as point of comparison, Japan allows only 100 Bq per kg in its food. For Cesium the UK allows 1000 Bq per kg and the EU 600 Bq/kg. The US, a leader in killing people, including its own, allows 1200 Bq Cesium and 1500 Bq overall (of those they measure).

    Most people don’t know that one meter cubed (m3) of water is 1,000 liters and one liter is roughly 1 kg so a m3 is roughly 1,000 kg or a metric tonne, which is why they say tonnage. They are able to play with this because it IS on the river. And, it is clearly a risk to Ireland, Norway, Scotland and the Arctic, some in the short time, some in longer time. It is clearly an Espoo violation.

    Also in the power point, the vast majority of radioactive waste is sent to the Northwest, so poisoning the people there, but also the Irish Sea and the above countries. Some also works its way to the Baltic. The speeds of migration of radionuclides from the Irish Sea can be easily found online and has been well documented because of concerns about Sellafield. Norway maintains a good web site. Who knows how many cancers the deer and other animals get? US and UK govs, I guess. Bees have been used by the US gov as sentinels. In the context of Chernobyl fallout someone said reindeer don’t live long enough to get cancer, they are eaten first. Sick wild ones would be taken out by wolves, etc., outside of the UK. The bones of wildlife and people will hold some of the bone-seeking radiation, after death, excepting cremation. It is gruesome and horrible. Their 1 mSv mentioned makes for 1,000 cancers per 100,000 or 1 per 100 over a lifetime (BEIR). UK and German experts such as Ian Fairlie think, based on their research, that it’s twice this.

  5. Many thanks for all your info on this. It is nothing less than mass poisoning . Im not a leader tho! Wish I was and then more people, everyone, might be galvanised into action against the dispersal of radioactive wastes into the environment!!

  6. Radiation Free Lakeland have a great following with over 8000 signing the Stop Moorside petition and growing….. but anti nuclear campaigns need more activists, blog writers, people asking questions, Protest organisers and such like.

  7. Pingback: What Next For Capenhurst and URENCO. | Close Capenhurst

  8. Reblogged this on Radiation Free Lakeland and commented:

    A reminder of why increased Siesmic activity from fracking in the NW is bonkers. Also bonkers is the frightening (and deliberate?) lack of attention on the growing mountain of radioactive wastes being dumped right now in the Preston area. A nightmare where people are directed to look at the fracking fires being set in one direction while being fatally poisoned with deadly radioactive wastes in another hidden from view direction.

  9. john

    What is also bonkers are the proposals for mining and undersea coalgassification in the Solway, several miles down the coast from Sellafield
    If you read through these two documents,one produced by Nirex, you will see how heavily fractured the whole area is.
    These fault line do not stop at the coast but continue along the sea bed.

    file:///C:/Users/John%20Williamson/Downloads/Sellafield-geological-and-hydrogeological-investigations-the-geological-structure-of-the-Sellafield-site-1997%20(2).pdf

    http://www.davidsmythe.org/nuclear/oldroyd%202002%20nirex.pdf

    Contact David Smythe for confirmation
    One good quake and we have a ready made dump. complete with waste and full of boreholes
    There never was goilng to be any new nuclear, surely that is obvious now
    Not here or in Wales nor in Somerset
    They are taking power generation back to the stone age, private and unregulated
    All major cities targeted to produce power from 100% renewables
    Starve the regions of funding, services and investment,let them waste away

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