Baroness Verma faces fresh rebellion over radioactive waste disposal debate. House of Lords, Moses Room, at 3.45 pm tomorrow, wed

Baroness Verma at the Mock Council of the European Union flickr CC-BY. Foreign and Commonwealth Office


Dear Tim

Tomorrow in the House of Lords at 3.45pm in the Moses Room Baroness Verma
will be leading a plan to change the law in order to dump democracy along
with nuclear waste.

Having just found out about this, Radiation Free Lakeland and other
voluntary groups have been frantically lobbying the House of Lords with
emails, phone calls and persuading those with a powerful voice such as
Friends of the Lake District to do the same.

Frack Free Somerset and others are also opposing this move, there appears
to be the
very real possibility that fracking boreholes may be used to dump nuclear
wastes. Radiation Free Lakeland are also mindful of the fact that 100
boreholes up to 150m deep (the depth at which nuclear wastes “can” be
dumped) are being dug right now next to Beckermet allegedly in preparation
for “Moorside’

To abandon the democratic process completely, by making the dumping of
nuclear waste a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project will exclude
locally-elected councilors, county officials and remove the need for any
genuine public consultation.

How much does the government want nuclear power? Will it do anything and
risk literally everything from democracy to health and the environment to
achieve that?

yours sincerely

Marianne Birkby
on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland

MOre information here

Letter to Baroness Bryony Worthington from Dr David Lowry : Reconsider The Plan for Nuclear Waste!

We Said NO!
We Said NO!

From: Dr David Lowry
Subject: Urgent: re consideration of Draft Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive
Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015 on Wednesday
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:43:58 +0000

FAO Baroness Bryony Worthington
23 February 2015

Dear Baroness Worthington

I understand you will be examining the Government’s draft statutory instrument :
Draft Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities)
Order 2015in The Moses Room, 3.45pm, Wednesday 25th February.

The Government proposals have received considerable criticism from a range of NGOs, Friends of the Earth included, while they were being drawn up. You would not gather this from the draft instrument put forward by DECC. I very much doubt Baroness Verma will convey this to peers when she speaks to support the draft SI on Wednesday.

Please could you consider at least reading onto the House of Lords Parliamentary Record the green NGO opposition to this draft instrument, so future generations can see from the Parliamentary Record that those voluntary groups tried to oppose – but were totally ignored – this highly misguided proposal, which will result in the virtual elimination of any future examination of this plan for long term subterranean nuclear waste management, both in Parliament, and in any local planning inquiry.

Aside from other consequences, this will create a massive democratic deficit in future.

many thanks


Dr David Lowry
NGO representative on SOS Energy and Climate change’s Geological Disposal
Implementation Board
(currently in cold storage as the SOS ED Davey declines to receive advice from the Board)
member, Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates


For the record, below is the NGO Nuclear Forum’s response to the consultation on
this matter.

We also believe that the Nationally Significant Infrastructure process is not
appropriate for granting consent for a GDF. A repository is a significant but
singular project unlikely to be repeated more than once in a generation. The
voluntary siting process to which the government is committed should, ultimately,
result in the identification of an appropriate site supported by the local
community. The process might take a long time but, if successful, the outcome
should be both scientifically credible and publicly acceptable. The critical
environmental, safety and other issues should have been fully debated, understood
and determined by the siting partnership, the decision making body, the government
and the regulators. Use of the Major Infrastructure Planning regime will insert an
unnecessary and limiting extra process when all major issues should have been

Extract from Response to the Consultation Prepared by the NGO Nuclear Forum to
Question 5 in Review of the Siting Process for a Geological Disposal Facility, Dec.
19th. 2013.(There were responses in similar vein from several others, notably NGOs.)
Along with other critics our argument was ignored. I agree that very much will
now depend on how voluntarism and engagement interact and influence the planning
process. How much will be left for the infrastructure planning progress to consider
and how effective will participation in that process be? The implications need to be
considered and I think the Forum should look into this. Professor Andrew Blowers,
Co-chair DECC Nation Nuclear NGO forum23 February 2015Planning for Nationally
Significant Infrastructure Projects – Commons Library Standard Note
Published 10 December 2014 | Standard notes SN06881
Amended 04 February 2015
Authors: Louise Smith
Topic: Planning
The Planning Act 2008, (the 2008 Act), introduced a new development consent process
for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). NSIPs are usually large
scale developments (relating to energy, transport, water, or waste) which require a
type of consent known as “development consent”. An extension of the regime in 2013
now allows certain business and commercial projects to opt into this process.

A Development Consent Order (DCO) automatically removes the need to obtain several
separate consents, including planning permission and is designed to be a much
quicker process than applying for these separately. The DCO process starts when an
application is formally accepted by the National Infrastructure Planning Unit and
lasts approximately 12-15 months. The final decision on granting a DCO rests with
the Secretary of State for that field, based on advice from planning inspectors –
known as the “examining authority”.

Applications for DCOs are decided in accordance with National Policy Statements
(NPSs), which after a process of consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny are
formally “designated” by Government. There are currently 12 designated or proposed
NPSs, which fall under the categories of hazardous waste, water supply, energy,
transport networks, aviation and ports.

In November 2013 the Government concluded that wholesale change to the DCO regime
could damage developer confidence. There was a consensus, however, that some minor
changes were needed to provide more clarity and speed to the process. A Government
consultation and response confirmed that new guidance would be published to clarify
what information developers need to provide with applications and what help is
available. Following this, in the Queen’s Speech 2014 it was announced that an
Infrastructure Bill would be introduced to, among other things, allow the panel of
examining inspectors on an application for a DCO to be appointed more quickly, for
only 2 inspectors to be appointed, and to simplify the process for modifying DCOs.
For detailed information about the Bill’s NSIP reform provisions see Library
standard note, Infrastructure Bill: Planning Provisions.

This note sets out these issues in more detail. It applies to England and in some
circumstances to Wales (see section 1.2).

Download the full report Planning for Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Projects ( PDF, 10 pages, 315.6 KB)

Draft Order laid before Parliament under section 232(6) of the Planning Act 2008,
for approval

by resolution of each House of Parliament.

2015 No. 0000


The Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological

Disposal Facilities) Order 2015
Made – – – – 2015

Coming into force – – 2015

The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 14(3) and
(4) and 232(3) of
the Planning Act 2008(a), makes the following Order.
A draft of this Order was laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of
each House of

Parliament in accordance with section 232(6) of that Act.
Citation, commencement and interpretation

1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste
Disposal Facilities) Order 2015 and comes into force on the day after the day on
which it is made.

(2) In this Order, “the Act” means the Planning Act 2008.
Amendments to the Act

2.—(1) The Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (nationally significant infrastructure projects: general)—

(a) after subsection (1)(p), insert—


(q) development relating to a radioactive waste geological disposal facility.”,

(b) in subsection (2), for “30” substitute “30A”.

(3) After section 30, insert—
“30A Radioactive waste geological disposal facilities

(1) A radioactive waste geological disposal facility means a facility which meets the

conditions in subsection (2).

(2) The conditions are that—
(a) 2008 c.29; relevant amendments are made by the Localism Act 2011 (c.20).


(a) the main purpose of the facility is expected to be the final disposal of


(b) the part of the facility where radioactive waste is to be disposed of is
expected to

be constructed at a depth of at least 200 metres beneath the surface of the ground

or seabed, and

(c) the natural environment which surrounds the facility is expected to act, in

combination with any engineered measures, to inhibit the transit of radionuclides

from the part of the facility where radioactive waste is to be disposed of to the


(3) Development is within section 14(1)(q) only if the development is within subsection

(4) or (6) of this section.

(4) Development is within this subsection if—

(a) it is the construction of one or more boreholes, and the carrying out of any

associated excavation, construction or building work,

(b) the borehole or boreholes will be constructed, and any associated excavation,

construction or building work will be carried out, in England or waters adjacent to

England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea, and

(c) the conditions in subsection (5) are met in relation to each borehole.

(5) The conditions are that—

(a) the borehole is expected to be constructed to a depth of at least 150 metres

the surface of the ground or seabed, and

(b) the main purpose of constructing the borehole is to obtain information, data or

samples to determine the suitability of a site for the construction or use of a

radioactive waste geological disposal facility.

(6) Development is within this subsection if—

(a) it is the construction of a radioactive waste geological disposal facility, and

(b) the facility (when constructed) will be in England or waters adjacent to England up

to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.

(7) In this section—

“disposal” in relation to radioactive waste means emplacement in an appropriate

without the intention to retrieve;

“radioactive waste” has the same meaning as in the Environmental Permitting (England
and Wales) Regulations 2010(a) (see paragraph 3(1) of Part 2 of Schedule 23 to those

(4) In subsection (1)(b) of section 240 (extent), for “30” substitute “30A”.

(5) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 12 (application of the Act to Scotland: modifications)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a)(ii), for “(p)” substitute “(q)”,

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “30” substitute “30A”.

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Date Department of Energy and Climate Change
(a) S.I. 2010/675.


(This note is not part of the Order)

Article 2 of this Order amends the Planning Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”).

The 2008 Act was amended by Chapter 6 of Part 6 of the Localism Act 2011, which came

force on 1st April 2012, by virtue of article 7 of the Localism Act 2011
(Commencement No. 4

and Transitional, Transitory and Saving Provisions) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/628 (C.
14)). Section

128 of the Localism Act 2011 abolishes the Infrastructure Planning Commission, and
Schedule 13

transfers its functions to the Secretary of State.

Article 2(2) of this Order amends section 14(1) of the 2008 Act to extend the
categories of

infrastructure project which are nationally significant for the purposes of the 2008
Act by adding

to them a new type of project, being development relating to radioactive waste
geological disposal

facilities. This new type of project is subject to the limitations in new section
30A of the 2008 Act

inserted by article 2(3) of this Order. The new section 30A provides criteria for

whether any particular project for development relating to radioactive waste
geological disposal

facilities is to be treated as a nationally significant infrastructure project for
the purposes of the

2008 Act.

Article 2(4) makes further consequential amendments in respect of Schedule 12 to the
2008 Act.
© Crown copyright 2015

Printed and published in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited under the authority
and superintendence of Carol Tullo,

Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Queen’s Printer of Acts of

PLEASE Ask Powerful Organisations to Lobby against Nuclear Dump Plan to be discussed in House of Lords on Wedesday

Nuclear Waste Barrels    costumes
Nuclear Waste Barrels costumes

Below is an example of a letter sent to the Angling Trust …we need to lobby organisations THIS MORNING ideally.  The House of Lords are discussing on wednesday at 3.45pm the plan to remove the democratic right of people to have a say in the dumping of nuclear waste.

Big orgs – ask them to assist with lobbying the House of Lords

Angling trust – 01568 620 447 contacted

Friends of the Lake District  t. 01539 720788  f. 01539 730355  e.

CPRE 020 7981 2800

local government association 020 7664 3000

lake district national park authority 01539 724555

wildlife trust 01636 677711

Dear Angling Trust,
I was very pleased to see your welcoming of a fracking climb down
about fracking in SSSIs and AONBs and I’m contacting you about another
issue of grave concern.

Unfortunately the government is still threatening these sensitive
areas and our water supply with their plans for Nuclear Waste. Because
the Coalition government are so desperate for new nuclear reactors
they have to be able to claim that the nuclear waste problem is sorted
in order to go ahead. You may already have been involved with the MRWS
process in Cumbria where their most recent search for a dump failed.

The failure of these processes has much to do with the political
corruption involved with the current and past processes.

Right now the government is trying to make Geological Disposal
facilities (GDF) into Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects
(NSIP) this will remove the right to make planning decisions relating
to exploratory boreholes and GDFs themselves from local communities
and planning authorities, placing the power to decide in the hands of
the secretary of state. The GDF concept is an unproven concept and
the only operating facility in the world the WIPP in America which
only takes low level waste has been closed down for over a year due to
exploding waste and contamination.

The Statutory Instrument that will make GDFs NSIP is going through
parliament RIGHT NOW it is being debated in the house of lords moses
room this wednesday. We are up against it & new to lobbying and so
would really like your help to ensure that our nations water is
protected for current & future generations.

I attach for your information a letter that a few of us have sent to a
few lords so far (Lord Tyler, Baroness Jones of Moullescombe, Baroness
of Chilthorne Dormer Lord Salisbury, Lord Whitty, Lord Northover,
Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Lord Rooker and Baroness Young of Old Scone)

I’m writing to you to ask for your assistance in lobbying on this
issue – it is my hope that you have already identified ‘friendly’
peers that you’ve lobbied before over other issues such as fracking.

Please could you assist with this? The lords rarely reject a statutory
instrument (although they do occasionally when it is something
controversial). I’ve been adviced by parliamnetary outreach that we
need to reate an atmosphere in the house of lords that may cause the
government to withdraw delay postpone their plans. Please can you
assist us in this most urgent matter?

We have less than two
days to pile pressure on the lords and try and get enough lords into
the debate to have a bit of a ‘ding-dong’ so that they have to move it
to the main chamber for a vote, if not it will be debated uncontested
before going to the commons.

Today at Hinkley “Return to Sender” Nuclear Waste Barrels

Nuclear Waste Barrels    costumes
Nuclear Waste Barrels costumes

*Santa Claus to protest at Hinkley Nuclear Power Station*

On Thursday 11th December, protesters dressed as Santa Claus and as
giant drums of radio-active waste will descend on Hinkley Nuclear Power
Station in Somerset in a *RETURN TO SENDER*protest.

The aim of their visit will be to return unwanted Christmas presents ..
radio-active waste.

Protesters will be singing Christmas carols and a parody of the Elvis
classic ‘Return to sender’

*The protest takes place between on Thursday 11th December 12.00 and
2.00pm at the main gates of Hinkley Nuclear Power Station in Somerset.*

*Background*: The present nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point send
radio-active waste to the reprocessing site at Sellafield in Cumbria at
least once a week. It is transported by road from Hinkley to Bridgewater
where it is loaded by crane onto trains. The loading depot is next to
Eastover Junior School where at least one incident of spillage of
radio-active waste has occurred (3 Feb 1988.)

Protesters are opposing the proposed new nuclear power station Hinkley-C
as un-safe, un-necessary, and un-affordable. They go on to say that
nuclear power will not save us from climate change. In the mean time
Sellafield is one of the most polluted and dangerous places on the
planet and it’s madness to continue producing more waste.

*Protesters* say “There’s already well over a hundred tons of plutonium
waste at Sellafield – the most dangerous and toxic element on earth. We
ask the question WHY? And we say its madness to keep adding to this
lethal stockpile. No more nuclear power stations and clean up the
existing mess

*Marianne Birkby* RADIATION FREE LAKELAND says …Nuclear waste is a
toxic time bomb not wanted by anyone. Sellafield in Cumbria is where all
nuclear reprocessing and eventual dumping of radioactive materials takes
place in the UK. Reprocessing was the heart of plutonium manufacturing
for the British atomic weapons program, there is now around 140 tonnes
of plutonium. The full inventory of radioactive wastes are not known.
Sellafield says with hellish optimism “We are world leaders in nuclear
waste management.”   The reality is crumbing open tanks of radioactive
wastes too radioactive even for robots to get anywhere near. Cumbria is
way past saturation point as far as radioactive wastes are concerned.
The only “solution”  is to dump it into the environment. More power to
the protesters stopping the insane building of even more nuclear power

100 Boreholes would bring Sellafield’s Leaking Mess to the surface – to be dumped where?

Moorside - 100 boreholes
Moorside – 100 boreholes
Nuclear Developers Rip Out  Footpath Signs - Moorside
Nuclear Developers Rip Out Footpath Signs – Moorside
The beautiful River Ehen about to be Nuclearised?
The beautiful River Ehen about to be Nuclearised?
Borehole - Moorside. The first of 100 to "explore" Poison the Land in Preparation for 3 New Reactors
Borehole – Moorside. The first of 100 to “explore” Poison the Land in Preparation for 3 New Reactors

Today an anti fracking colleague pointed us to the Environmental Permitting issued by the Environment Agency for radioactive wastes the fracking company Cuadrilla wants to bring up out of boreholes and dump into the environment.  This is beyond scandalous.  But it got me thinking about the 100 boreholes that have already started being bored into the land around Sellafield.  If there are any Environmental Permits then the Environment Agency aren’t making them easy to find.  And where will the radioactive plutonium and caesium brought up out of the contaminated ground next to Sellafield go?  How will the use of explosives for borehole drilling affect the nearby crumbling Sellafield waste  ponds?

Fracking brings up Naturally Occuring Radioactive Materials – which is nasty carcinogenic stuff.

But the stuff about to be brought out of the contaminated ground next to Sellafield is far worse and yet …..WHY IS NO ONE SHOUTING?

It is goose bump  making to see the Friends of the Lake District and others putting so much effort into the pylon consultation.  The pylon consultation is just a means to push along this diabolic plan for 3 dangerous reactors next to the most dangerous pile of radioactive wastes in the world.

The pylons WILL NOT GO AHEAD if Moorside is stopped, we know this because the National Grid told us so.  So why aren’t Friends of the Lake District, Cumbria Wildlife Trust and other groups working to Stop Moorside instead of faffing about with pylons?  They say they are waiting for the developers consultation on Moorside (actually Greenmoorside and Peterburgh farm )

– they might as well say they are waiting for the Titanic to set sail.

85 boreholes Moorside (100 total) L148_British_Energy_Coast_RFP_for_Geo_Hydro_Drilling_v1_0



nb are the 100 boreholes for testing the geology for new reactors or for softening us up to dump nuclear waste (back)  into ?

You too can have a Lakeland View Like this – All you have to do is Nothing!

Moorside from Scafell Pike - You too can have a view like this - just do nothing!
Moorside from Scafell Pike – You too can have a view like this – just do nothing!

Radiation Free Lakeland will be launching the report on 26th Sept at the
Beckermet Pylon Consultation from 1-2.

Please join us if you can – we will then walk for a few miles or so around the
‘Moorside’ site (actually called Greenmoorside).

The Cooling Towers for AP1000 reactors under construction in America and China are 600ft to 800ft high. This is many times higher than any existing
building in Cumbria and more than double the height of the now demolished Calder Hall cooling towers. The largest pylons for example would be 152ft.

Radioactively contaminated seawater would be drawn from the Irish Sea for cooling. Deposition from vapours and particulate matter emissions from cooling towers would fall on Lakeland. The visible vapor plumes
associated with cooling towers can rise more than 5,000 feet above the towers (ie above the Lakeland fells) and extend as far as 9 miles downwind.

The river Ehen meanders through National Trust land from Ennerdale to the final reaches at the proposed Moorside site. Fresh Water Pearl Mussels and
other endangered species are under direct threat as a result of the Moorside proposal.

NUGEN are disingenuously describing this beautiful 500 acre area of West Cumbria as
“a brownfield site.” We wonder how much more of Cumbria will be described as “brownfield” should Moorside go ahead?

Radiation Free Lakeland have sent the report to movers and shakers such as the National Trust, Friends of the Lake District and Cumbria Wildlife
Trust, all of whom are taking part in the Pylon CONsultation while Saying NOWT about the biggest nuclear development in Europe.

MOORSIDE RaFL Report 19.9.14



Many thanks to the Big Issue for printing the letter: Beacon of Lies

We will be holding a demonstration at the official opening of the Beacon on Friday from 10.00am.

We will have a counter-exhibition and will be handing out leaflets.  The charming Brian Cox and Baroness Verma will be there to groom us into loving nuclear.

Bring Banners, Bring Music, Bring Yourselves and RESIST!

Full Letter in this week’s Big Issue (note Demo is THIS Friday 10 am)

Big Issue in the North, Letters- Beacon of Lies
Big Issue in the North, Letters- Beacon of Lies


Imagine a world where fracking was a wholly state-sponsored industry with privateers chasing lucrative government contracts to frack……

Appropriately enough the Beacon’s new tag line is “absorbing”.  We have absorbed enough already.


“Its always the technology that lets us down” says International Authority on nuclear safety

Committee on Radioactive Waste Management meeting 30th April 2014
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management meeting 30th April 2014
We Said NO!
We Said NO!
On the Road again - Nuclear Waste
On the Road again – Nuclear Waste



Many thanks to the Bristol nuclear waste barrels for their epic journey to West Cumbria.  These are the ONLY nuclear barrels that we want in Cumbria but more of the REAL spent fuel is arriving by the week for insane reprocessing.

The barrels were worn by local West Cumbrians and by Bristolians alike.

The colourful demo made such a huge impact with people coming up to us to say how disgusted they were at the government coming back to Cumbria repeatedly to try to force a deep nuke dump or two or three on us.

The best quote of the night was from Professor Laurence Williams of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management when the microphone conked out : “its always the technology that lets us down”

Quite – thats what we think about the plan to use previously unused and scientifically impossible to predict “engineered barriers” 1000 metres underground with geology as the last line of defence when the barriers inevitably deteriorate.  The government is keen to show that “steady progress is being made in the implementation of geological disposal working within the underpinning principles of voluntarism and partnership with local communities”    WE SAID NO – AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN

Head of Committee on Radioactive Waste Management – Laurence Williams


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 ………..