nuclear-news

UK’s Nuclear Policy is a farce, especially re waste disposal

The document concludes: In short, the Government’s conclusion “…that effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power stations” is not supported by the evidence. The Nuclear National Policy Statement is, therefore, not “fit for purpose”.

Stop oldbury: Response to Consultation on Nuclear National Policy Statement,  Philip Booth 23 Jan 2010 “…..Reactor designs being discussed lead to additional concerns For example the French ‘European Pressurised Reactor’ proposed will use intensive ‘high burn-up fuel’ increasing the risk of high quantities of radiation in a serious accident. This fuel is so hot and radioactive it will also need to be stored on site for 160 years, long after the power company has ceased generating electricity, creating an additional local hazard.

There are no plans are in place for its eventual ‘disposal’. Some nuclear wastes have radioactivity that remains dangerous to human and animal health for 250,000 years. What ethical right do we have to dump that problem on our descendants for the sake of a few years worth of electricity?

I note that the Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates (NWAA), a group of experts with over 200 years of collective experience of the issues involved in nuclear waste, have submitted detailed written evidence to the House of Commons’ Energy and Climate Change Select Committee Inquiry into the new suite of National Infrastructure Policy Statements. They argue that the national nuclear policy statement indicating government’s intention to support new nuclear power stations in the UK is ‘not fit for purpose’. In particular:

– Four former members of the government’s own Committee on Radioactive waste Management (CoRWM) – two of whom are members of NWAA – have previously written to the Secretary of State to say that in their opinion, ‘It is unknowable whether or not effective arrangements (for the long term management of new build waste) will exist….’
The generic scientific grounds upon which the last attempt to dispose of radioactive waste at during the Rock Characterisation Facility programme in 1997 have not been resolved and are therefore still pertinent to the situation today

– Technical problems associated with a disposal facility are legion and most are recognised by the Environment Agency, thereby making any assertion of confidence in the disposability of radioactive waste premature……………

No assessment has been made of the acceptability of radioactive waste management from the mining and milling of imported uranium, which Government consultants reveal currently produce over 90% of the ‘radiological dose detriment’ form the uranium fuel chain for modern reactor fuel

The document concludes: In short, the Government’s conclusion “…that effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power stations” is not supported by the evidence. The Nuclear National Policy Statement is, therefore, not “fit for purpose”.
…………2.7. Nuclear power stations are vulnerable to flooding as sea levels rise. The proposals are for new plants to be built near the sea, for cooling and waste discharge purposes. Sea level rise due to global warming will add a huge amount to the decommissioning costs.

stop oldbury: Response to Consultation on Nuclear National Policy Statement

January 25, 2010 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK, wastes | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear secrecy, nuclear wastes, radioactive