Sellafield workers call on councils not to 'shy away' from 'dump' decision. Yes vote will not mean 'digging, sub-surface work or boreholes'

WORKERS from Sellafield are urging Cumbrian councils not to shy away from the next stage of feasibility studies into a geological disposal facility for radioactive waste in Cumbria.

Ahead of next Wednesday's decision by Cumbria County Council, Allerdale and Copeland councils over whether the county should remain in the search to find a home for a vast underground nuclear waste repository, staff at the nuclear site said the area should not bail out so early.

It stressed that any yes vote would not mean 'digging, sub-surface work; or boreholes,' but merely 'experts conducting geological studies from their desks.'

They added this would include an inventory of what waste Britain has and then discussions between the council and the government over a social and economic benefits package for the county.

Sellafield employs around 12,000 people with thousands more in the local supply chain. Kevin Coyne, Unite national officer and chair of Trade Unions for Safe Nuclear Energy, said: “The people of Cumbria will not be making any commitments to a geological disposal facility by agreeing to continue with this study. What the workers at Sellafield want is a full and proper investigation into the feasibility of such a facility in Cumbria. Only then can we consider how best to proceed.

"Britain has been searching for a national waste repository for over 30 years. In the meantime Sellafield workers have the responsibility of looking after most of this radioactive waste. It is not going to go away. Good science needs to prevail in order for Cumbria and the rest of the UK to resolve how we deal with this important issue."

Just this week, Cumbria Tourism said it remained neutral on the issue but would strongly object if any plan encroached into Lake District National Park territory. Conservation charity, the Friends of the Lake District, have also called on county councillors to pull out.

Meanwhile, national campaign group 38 degrees, says 16,000 people have signed a petition on its Campaigns by You’ web site against the plan.

The ‘No Nuclear Dump’ campaign was set up and attracted over 1,000 new names each day, said 38 degrees.

David Babbs, of 38 Degrees, said: “This is about people power. For over 16,000 people – over 1/3 of them from Cumbria - to sign this petition in just a few weeks sends a really clear message: that the public don’t want a nuclear dump in the Lake District. The councillors need to take the wishes of their constituents seriously into account before they decide to proceed any further with the nuclear dump."

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:12am Fri 25 Jan 13

craggy says...

Nice to read the views of those who actually know about the processes involved. Its also interesting to hear that only just over 5000 of those who have signed the on line petition are from Cumbria, despite the fact that Marianne continues to claim she speaks for the majority!
Nice to read the views of those who actually know about the processes involved. Its also interesting to hear that only just over 5000 of those who have signed the on line petition are from Cumbria, despite the fact that Marianne continues to claim she speaks for the majority! craggy
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Fri 25 Jan 13

frozen says...

"This is about people power. For over 16,000 people – over 1/3 of them from Cumbria - to sign this petition in just a few weeks sends a really clear message: that the public don’t want a nuclear dump in the Lake District"

I was under the impression it wasn't going to be in the Lake District!
"This is about people power. For over 16,000 people – over 1/3 of them from Cumbria - to sign this petition in just a few weeks sends a really clear message: that the public don’t want a nuclear dump in the Lake District" I was under the impression it wasn't going to be in the Lake District! frozen
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Fri 25 Jan 13

zaney5 says...

I think the fact that 2/3rds of the people that signed are not from the area sends out an even bigger message. Maybe those people have 2nd homes here. Maybe they are regular visitors to the area. Maybe they just don't want the dump here... or anywhere for that matter.
I know I don't.
I think the fact that 2/3rds of the people that signed are not from the area sends out an even bigger message. Maybe those people have 2nd homes here. Maybe they are regular visitors to the area. Maybe they just don't want the dump here... or anywhere for that matter. I know I don't. zaney5
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Fri 25 Jan 13

Kendmoor says...

Think you're misreading it there frozen? It just said "the Lake District"- just like the sign on the way into cumbria reads "Cumbria - The Lake District"
I'm assuming you're confusing "The Lake District" with "The Lake District National Park"
Think you're misreading it there frozen? It just said "the Lake District"- just like the sign on the way into cumbria reads "Cumbria - The Lake District" I'm assuming you're confusing "The Lake District" with "The Lake District National Park" Kendmoor
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Fri 25 Jan 13

craggy says...

To put it another way, 1% of Cumbrians have signed the petition-
Yep, that's 1%
To put it another way, 1% of Cumbrians have signed the petition- Yep, that's 1% craggy
  • Score: 0

11:54pm Fri 25 Jan 13

KendalSmithy says...

We get the impression from the objectors that the whole of the 'Lake District' will be a building and mining site. I would guess that couldn't be further from the truth and that the works will be restricted to very small areas, and deliberately kept as low-key as possible. I have no problem with the prospect of a nuclear dump far beneath my feet, providing the appropriate investigations are undertaken first.
We get the impression from the objectors that the whole of the 'Lake District' will be a building and mining site. I would guess that couldn't be further from the truth and that the works will be restricted to very small areas, and deliberately kept as low-key as possible. I have no problem with the prospect of a nuclear dump far beneath my feet, providing the appropriate investigations are undertaken first. KendalSmithy
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Kendal Jock says...

craggy wrote:
To put it another way, 1% of Cumbrians have signed the petition-
Yep, that's 1%
Usual moaners scaremongering.
Not a big majority is it, 1%?
Take note of what the 'real experts say and not be pressured by green people.
[quote][p][bold]craggy[/bold] wrote: To put it another way, 1% of Cumbrians have signed the petition- Yep, that's 1%[/p][/quote]Usual moaners scaremongering. Not a big majority is it, 1%? Take note of what the 'real experts say and not be pressured by green people. Kendal Jock
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Mike the sailor says...

Seems to me that until we have had a complete investigation into the suitability of the Area we will not know if it is suitable and as only 1% of Cumbrian's have bothered to vote against surely its a foregone conclusion that we must go ahead with the research first, its possible that it may me found unsuitable anyway in which case 1% will be happy and the rest will be satisfied knowing that the research was done, alternatively if it is found to be suitable then it will have to be decided democratically how to proceed. I suggest that the 1% turn off their mains supply so that the rest of us can continue using what electricity we can produce without modernising our present generating methods, perhaps a few hundred wind turbines long the Coast from Black Comb to St Bees head would suffice.
Mike
Seems to me that until we have had a complete investigation into the suitability of the Area we will not know if it is suitable and as only 1% of Cumbrian's have bothered to vote against surely its a foregone conclusion that we must go ahead with the research first, its possible that it may me found unsuitable anyway in which case 1% will be happy and the rest will be satisfied knowing that the research was done, alternatively if it is found to be suitable then it will have to be decided democratically how to proceed. I suggest that the 1% turn off their mains supply so that the rest of us can continue using what electricity we can produce without modernising our present generating methods, perhaps a few hundred wind turbines long the Coast from Black Comb to St Bees head would suffice. Mike Mike the sailor
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Mon 28 Jan 13

life cycle too says...

Why do the think the "Lake District brand" might be damaged??? What are they talking about!

Did the fall out from Chernobyl which came down in Cumbria, leading to restrictions on livestock which have only just been lifted put anyone off coming to the Lakes?

Did Foot and Mouth put people off? No, they had to be forcibly restrained from climbing over gates etc.

Much of the waste is already here in ponds of water above ground in specially designed flasks – not “dumped”. Many anti nuclear protestors who live here are keen to tell us how dangerous it is – yet they STILL live here, and have not fled to safety!!

Problems with ground water...? Are we put off travelling through the Channel Tunnel by the water that seeps into the tunnel, or the thought that it is driven through chalk?

I’m afraid the “anti” camp are pulling out every trick in the book to try and prevent even an INVESTIGATION into the proper storage of waste to be considered!

Finally the they claim that Cumbria County Councils head worked for BNFL – and MIGHT be biased.
Should we replace him with an anti nuclear candidate, who might also be biased, or rely on the opinion of somebody who actually might know what he is talking about, to guide the decision of a COUNCIL?

The decision is not HIS alone – he cannot force it through the county council!
Why do the think the "Lake District brand" might be damaged??? What are they talking about! Did the fall out from Chernobyl which came down in Cumbria, leading to restrictions on livestock which have only just been lifted put anyone off coming to the Lakes? Did Foot and Mouth put people off? No, they had to be forcibly restrained from climbing over gates etc. Much of the waste is already here in ponds of water above ground in specially designed flasks – not “dumped”. Many anti nuclear protestors who live here are keen to tell us how dangerous it is – yet they STILL live here, and have not fled to safety!! Problems with ground water...? Are we put off travelling through the Channel Tunnel by the water that seeps into the tunnel, or the thought that it is driven through chalk? I’m afraid the “anti” camp are pulling out every trick in the book to try and prevent even an INVESTIGATION into the proper storage of waste to be considered! Finally the they claim that Cumbria County Councils head worked for BNFL – and MIGHT be biased. Should we replace him with an anti nuclear candidate, who might also be biased, or rely on the opinion of somebody who actually might know what he is talking about, to guide the decision of a COUNCIL? The decision is not HIS alone – he cannot force it through the county council! life cycle too
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Mon 28 Jan 13

laker1 says...

For the life of me, I can't quite fathom where the protestors are coming from - if the site is totally unsuitable geographically, then surely further investigation can only confirm that, and I can't imagine that anyone would pursue the project in Cumbria if that is found to be the case. People talk that they don't want this stuff here in Cumbria on our doorstep - but IT IS HERE ALREADY - on the surface. Surely, if the investigations confirm that the area is suitable, it's better being miles underground than sitting on the surface as it is at present
For the life of me, I can't quite fathom where the protestors are coming from - if the site is totally unsuitable geographically, then surely further investigation can only confirm that, and I can't imagine that anyone would pursue the project in Cumbria if that is found to be the case. People talk that they don't want this stuff here in Cumbria on our doorstep - but IT IS HERE ALREADY - on the surface. Surely, if the investigations confirm that the area is suitable, it's better being miles underground than sitting on the surface as it is at present laker1
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Kendmoor says...

I'm not convinced that it is better miles underground than it is on the surface, seems to me that a leak on the surface would be easier to track and contain than a leak underground.
I mean I'm quite willing to have my mind changed if there are the facts out there...I feel that I trust human engineering underground far less than what we can fix readily on the surface (I can't image what they'd have to go through if problems were found later)
just looking at the wiki entry for current repository makes me a little uneasy in itself
http://tinyurl.com/a
tz559v
This is a slightly grander scale isn't it though, than what is already here?
to quote the site:
"2.5 and 9 square miles" that is rather huge! The protesters from what I gather, are more against the burying of nuclear waste underground (though I wouldn't doubt they are also against nuclear!)
http://tinyurl.com/a
3ca2rb
fantastic site, btw that one, there appears to be very little bias in the FAQ and just facts!
I'm not convinced that it is better miles underground than it is on the surface, seems to me that a leak on the surface would be easier to track and contain than a leak underground. I mean I'm quite willing to have my mind changed if there are the facts out there...I feel that I trust human engineering underground far less than what we can fix readily on the surface (I can't image what they'd have to go through if problems were found later) just looking at the wiki entry for current repository makes me a little uneasy in itself http://tinyurl.com/a tz559v This is a slightly grander scale isn't it though, than what is already here? to quote the site: "2.5 and 9 square miles" that is rather huge! The protesters from what I gather, are more against the burying of nuclear waste underground (though I wouldn't doubt they are also against nuclear!) http://tinyurl.com/a 3ca2rb fantastic site, btw that one, there appears to be very little bias in the FAQ and just facts! Kendmoor
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Kendmoor says...

I mean just thinking about it, it can only break...thats all that can happen, it will not last forever; so logically thinking all we're doing is creating a very expensive, very dangerous and I would expect, a very tricky problem for future generations
I think that same site (the official one) said something on there about retrieval and that it was "something for future consideration" or some such like; which reads as if "well, we can think about that when the time comes"?
Q16 on the FAQ is about cumbria already identified as not sutible
"The Partnership received expert geological submissions arguing that West Cumbria’s geology is unsuitable and further progress is not worthwhile"
that worrys me a little too..I mean do you keep pushing until you get the answer you want?
I'm more than happy for them to run more tests to find out what they need to know, as long as at the end of it there is concensus. I still have my doubts about it though..
I mean just thinking about it, it can only break...thats all that can happen, it will not last forever; so logically thinking all we're doing is creating a very expensive, very dangerous and I would expect, a very tricky problem for future generations I think that same site (the official one) said something on there about retrieval and that it was "something for future consideration" or some such like; which reads as if "well, we can think about that when the time comes"? Q16 on the FAQ is about cumbria already identified as not sutible "The Partnership received expert geological submissions arguing that West Cumbria’s geology is unsuitable and further progress is not worthwhile" that worrys me a little too..I mean do you keep pushing until you get the answer you want? I'm more than happy for them to run more tests to find out what they need to know, as long as at the end of it there is concensus. I still have my doubts about it though.. Kendmoor
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Mon 28 Jan 13

marianneb says...

The trick being played on Cumbrian Councillors is that if they say yes, they will overturn the findings of the Nirex inquiry and find that justification for withdrawal at a later stage is also overturned with previous and related scientific evidence being inadmissable. More here...http://www.ge
newatch.org/uploads/
f03c6d66a9b354535738
483c1c3d49e4/HW_alle
rdale_fin.pdf
The trick being played on Cumbrian Councillors is that if they say yes, they will overturn the findings of the Nirex inquiry and find that justification for withdrawal at a later stage is also overturned with previous and related scientific evidence being inadmissable. More here...http://www.ge newatch.org/uploads/ f03c6d66a9b354535738 483c1c3d49e4/HW_alle rdale_fin.pdf marianneb
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Mon 28 Jan 13

life cycle too says...

When Nirex came to their conclusions, we didn't have half the technology we have now, so what's wrong with investigating further.
When Nirex came to their conclusions, we didn't have half the technology we have now, so what's wrong with investigating further. life cycle too
  • Score: 0

12:23am Tue 29 Jan 13

Kendmoor says...

^absolutely nothing, but that's not going to change any of my previous concerns.
As I said earlier, i've no problem with them reassessing it
^absolutely nothing, but that's not going to change any of my previous concerns. As I said earlier, i've no problem with them reassessing it Kendmoor
  • Score: 0

2:29am Tue 29 Jan 13

life cycle too says...

Kendmoor wrote:
^absolutely nothing, but that's not going to change any of my previous concerns.
As I said earlier, i've no problem with them reassessing it
No but Marianneb has!

She appears to want it to all go away somewhere else, and to stop future nuclear generation of power, which she says is a big con, and actually uses more power keeping the plant going, as well as drying up Ennerdale to keep it all cool.
[quote][p][bold]Kendmoor[/bold] wrote: ^absolutely nothing, but that's not going to change any of my previous concerns. As I said earlier, i've no problem with them reassessing it[/p][/quote]No but Marianneb has! She appears to want it to all go away somewhere else, and to stop future nuclear generation of power, which she says is a big con, and actually uses more power keeping the plant going, as well as drying up Ennerdale to keep it all cool. life cycle too
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree