Publication date: 26th May 2006
Summary
In May 2006, CoRWM released its draft recommendations (PDF) on the management of radioactive wastes. The committee, which was set up by the government to find a long-term management plan for nuclear waste, concluded that the best available approach is "geological disposal" - more commonly called deep dumping.
After the release of the recommendations, a public consultation followed. This document is Greenpeace's submission to that public consultation.
Please note, the document refers to the Greenpeace response to draft Nuclear Industries Security (Amendment) Regulations, a letter responding to proposed changes to Nuclear Industries Security Regulations, which threaten the openness and transparency of discussions on nuclear matters. You can also download this document below.
Latest news
When is a solution not a solution?
Posted by ben on 15 November 2007.
As Gordon Brown grapples with the question of whether to push the nuclear button and give the green light to a fleet of new reactors in the UK, we keep on hearing from those rum coves in the industry about how they now have a solution, or more accurately a "management strategy", for dealing with all the tonnes of lethal radioactive waste nuclear reactors produce. This state-of-the-art solution comes in the shape of the rather grandly titled "deep geological repository". To you and me this roughly translates as "a deep hole in the ground", a massive underground dump wherein our toxic legacy will be buried, back filled and then it's goodnight Vienna.
Read more »
Government's nuclear ambitions suffer another body blow
Posted by nathan on 5 November 2007.
It looks like the government's nuclear ambitions have been dealt yet another major body blow. This time it's all about the thorny, intractable issue of nuclear waste.
Just as yet another nuclear-related consultation comes to an end, this time on where to store the UK's highly toxic atomic legacy, the government has been warned that it would be "wrong", and possibly even illegal, to use Sellafield in West Cumbria as a site for long term nuclear waste disposal. David Smythe, emeritus professor of geophysics at the University of Glasgow and a nuclear waste expert, said ministers should have ruled out Sellafield - home to the nation's most enthusiastic nuclear partisans and the long-assumed front runner in the race to house a waste dump – years ago after spending hundreds of millions of pounds on research that proved the area was geologically unsuitable to be a store for radioactive waste. Professor Smythe said, "there is clear evidence, after the expenditure of some £400m, mostly directed to the Sellafield area, that West Cumbria possesses no suitable rocks in which to site such a repository".
Read more »
Bury it deep under the carpet, along with all of nuclear's other problems
Posted by bex on 28 July 2006.
A radioactive waste dump in Buryakovka, Russia
CoRWM has recommended that the UK should manage its radioactive waste pile through "deep geological disposal", also known as deep dumping.
Greenpeace response to draft recommendations from CoRWM
Publication of nuclear dump list blights communities across Britain
A nuclear waste flask
Greenpeace today called on the Government's nuclear waste agency, NIREX, to 'come clean' on where they really want to dump radioactive waste in Britain after the agency published lists drawn up in the 1980's of potential dump sites. The environmental group warned that by not revealing which sites were being 'actively considered' for a nuclear waste dump, NIREX is casting a shadow over scores of communities across Britain.
Two historic lists were eventually issued by NIREX today after more than sixteen years under lock and key - one of 500 'possible sites', and a shortlist of 12. But NIREX also says that, because of technological advancements, the short list of 12 is not final and more sites from the 500 may be considered (1). Therefore the public still doesnt know where radioactive material from nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants will be dumped.
Greenpeace is challenging NIREX to reveal which sites are under active consideration for the dumping of radioactive waste. Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Jean McSorley said:
"The public has a right to know where dangerous radioactive wastes are going to be dumped, but after years of procrastination and manipulation NIREX still cant bring itself to front up to the public and tell them the exact truth. While locations on the list of 500 might still be included in a final shortlist, a massive nuclear blight hangs over hundreds of communities across Britain. The way the list came out, only weeks after an election, is symptomatic of a culture of secrecy and manipulation that has to end.
"Nirex must reveal which sites are really in the frame for a nuclear dump. Not only is it vital for communities who will be on the receiving end but it is unfair on people living in areas no longer considered suitable whose lives have been blighted by rumours of potential dumps."
Greenpeace also accused NIREX of fixing the timing of the release to manipulate public debate around possible new reactors. NIREX has admitted the list was deliberately withheld for publication until after the election.
NIREX was established in the 1980s to oversee the disposal of radioactive waste. Greenpeace supports the dry storage of waste above ground at current nuclear sites, and a phase-out of nuclear power so no new waste is created.
"If the industry gets its way and new nuclear reactors are built, Britains radioactive waste problem will get even worse. The Government already has a big problem on its hands in trying to find sites to dispose of the waste weve already produced. More nuclear power stations will only make things worse."
Originally a dump would have been designed to take intermediate level wastes. The latest plans include placing intensely radioactive heat-generating wastes such as spent nuclear fuel and high level waste in any chosen dump. Plutonium might also be disposed of at such a site.
NIREX has admitted that it decided not release the list until after the general election so as not to incur public and political opposition in any of the areas where it might want to site a nuclear dump. It made that decision despite a legal obligation to release the lists until Freedom of Information requests made in January of this year.
Further Information
For more details call Greenpeace on 0207 865 8255.
Notes to editors
In its briefing NIREX concedes 'In short, the look of any future list cannot be predicted at this stage and no sites can be ruled in or out at this point.'
Chris Murray, Director of NIREX, told a meeting of stakeholder groups on 26 May that NIREX had made the decision not to release any of the NIREX lists of potential sites before the election to avoid opposition 'sanitising' areas from future consideration for waste disposal.