EDF plans 2 new sites for dumping radioactive mud dredged from Hinkley Point

Hinkley’ campaign and the ‘Geiger Bay’ campaign have been involved in
raising concerns over the dumping of large amounts of dredged materials
from the EDF site at Hinkley Point into sites between the south Wales and
the Somerset coast.
In a surprise move to the groups, EDF, which is
building a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point, has announced that the
Portishead marine disposal site LU070 is now a possible dumping ground for
the seabed sediment it is seeking to dredge from Bridgwater Bay in order to
sink cooling water intake and outfall tunnels for the new reactors at
Hinkley Point.
building a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point, has announced that the
Portishead marine disposal site LU070 is now a possible dumping ground for
the seabed sediment it is seeking to dredge from Bridgwater Bay in order to
sink cooling water intake and outfall tunnels for the new reactors at
Hinkley Point.
Despite major public opposition in Wales, in 2018 the Welsh
Government permitted EDF to dump large quantities of Hinkley C dredged mud
at the Cardiff Deep Grounds inshore disposal site, only 2 miles off the
Cardiff Bay sea front.
Government permitted EDF to dump large quantities of Hinkley C dredged mud
at the Cardiff Deep Grounds inshore disposal site, only 2 miles off the
Cardiff Bay sea front.
This came after EDF insisted that it was the only
suitable site available in the Bristol Channel. However, EDF has recently
announced its intention to apply to the Marine Management Organisation
(MMO) for a license to dump at Portishead, while also making a further
application to dump at the existing Welsh site. No reason has been given by
EDF for the Portishead proposal.
suitable site available in the Bristol Channel. However, EDF has recently
announced its intention to apply to the Marine Management Organisation
(MMO) for a license to dump at Portishead, while also making a further
application to dump at the existing Welsh site. No reason has been given by
EDF for the Portishead proposal.
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- March 2021 (14)
- February 2021 (271)
- January 2021 (278)
- December 2020 (230)
- November 2020 (297)
- October 2020 (392)
- September 2020 (349)
- August 2020 (351)
- July 2020 (280)
- June 2020 (293)
- May 2020 (251)
- April 2020 (273)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Leave a Reply