Any Volunteers for Nuclear Waste Dumping?

10.48.00am BST (GMT +0100) Wed 23rd Aug 2006

A Nirex report published in 2005 says that sites considered in the past for the burial of low and intermediate level nuclear waste included Melton Mowbray, Cottesmore and Luffenham. These were just three of 500+ sites around the country. A new site selection process is due to begin in the next year or two and Greenpeace believes that some of the same sites might be earmarked for radioactive waste storage. (See their map - link below). On July 31 (2006) the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommended that private as well as government sites be considered. They also think that communities should be asked to volunteer to have nuclear waste stored in return for incentives. Read what local committee member Professor John Twidell has to say -

"There are two aspects concerning the long term disposal of nuclear waste, (i) dealing with present waste already accumulated (legacy waste), and (ii) making more waste from future new nuclear power stations. Lib Dem policy is that legacy waste, (i), has to be dealt with by the safest and least aggravating method (e.g. as recommended in the recent (July 31, 2006) report of CoRWM). However, the £10 billion estimated cost of such disposal and the great difficulty in finding an appropriate location, is ample reason NOT to continue accumulating more waste. Lib Dems completely reject the argument that says, "If we have a disposal method for legacy waste, then we can use the same hole for more future waste. Such attempted justification is often made by polluters but two wrongs never make a right."

Chris Huhne MP (Lib Dem Shadow Environment Secretary)

Commenting on July's publication of CoRWM's final report, Chris Huhne said: "Deep burial is the least bad option for the legacy of 50 years of nuclear waste, but it is also a real warning about the dangers and costs of a new generation of nuclear power. When you are in a hole, stop digging. If we had known about the dangers and costs of nuclear energy 50 years ago, it is doubtful we would have ever committed to this expensive mistake. High level nuclear waste has to be kept secure for 3000 years. Even if a community is prepared to take a deep geological storage unit, such a unit will not be sealed for 100 years. Even in a country as stable as ours, the last century has seen such political disruptions as the Easter rising, a near German invasion, an aerial bombardment, and decades of deadly terrorism."

Responding to the publication (by Greenpeace) of a timetable for trains that carry nuclear waste, Chris Huhne said: "This shocking revelation is a dream come true for terrorists. The Government should undertake an urgent assessment of how the risk can be reduced through measures such as increased trackside security and the use of routes that do not pass through population centres. The Liberal Democrats reject the need for new generation of nuclear power stations, which would create more waste. In a non-nuclear future, there will be no dangerous waste to transport in the first place."

Norman Baker MP

Norman Baker has said: "Britain is fast becoming the world's radioactive dustbin. It is dishonest of Ministers to state that they do not allow the importation of radioactive waste, but then create tens of thousands of tonnes from imported spent fuel. The cost of cleaning up radioactive waste currently held in Britain stands at £56billion."

Sir Menzies Campbell MP (Leader, Liberal Democrats)

Sir Ming Campbell has asked the Prime Minister to clarify his answer regarding generation of nuclear waste. The Prime Minister claimed that "the new generation of nuclear power stations generate about 10% of the waste of the previous generation." According to an independent report high level toxic waste will actually increase by 400%, with all forms of waste increasing by about 15%. In his letter Sir Menzies says: "Clearly whether levels of waste will increase by fifteen per cent or by four hundred per cent is a significant point that will impact on the debate about viability of nuclear power generation."

He asked the Prime Minister to clarify whether these estimates are correct or whether the answer he gave in the House of Commons represents the full picture:"No decision on future energy policy can be taken without consideration of these levels of waste and therefore costs to future consumers or taxpayers or industry."

Read our earlier story

http://www.rutlandlibdems.org.uk/news/45.html

Link to Greenpeace Map showing site locations (please cut & paste)

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?CFID=4106259&CFTOKEN=57043209&UCIDParam=20060328094751&CFID=5386078&CFTOKEN=96954204

Link to Greenpeace article (please cut & paste)

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?CFID=5386078&CFTOKEN=96954204&ucidparam=20060728150933&MenuPoint=D-E-F

Link to Committee on Radioactive Waste Management website

http://www.corwm.org.uk

Link to CoRWM's map of existing sites

http://www.corwm.org.uk/pdf/VolumeofWasteMap.pdf

Sign up and Say No to NUCLEAR

http://campaigns.libdems.org.uk/no2nuclear

--------------------