Allerdale and Copeland Green Party

SOLD:DDC  Save Our Lake District - Don’t Dump Cumbria A new group has been set up to oppose the proposed Radioactive Waste dump. If you agree that this proposal is not a good idea you might like to join - membership is only £1, though I'm sure they'd welcome extra donations. Cheques should be made payable to Don't Dump Cumbria and sent to Michael Baron at 28 South Street, Cockermouth, CA13 9RT The groups’s First Event will be at 7.30 pm on 2 February at the Cockermouth School Eco Centre, on Castlegate Drive Prof (Emeritus) David Smythe (www.davidsmythe.org) is talking on Are we REALLY managing radioactive waste safely ? The Geology of West Cumbria - problems for nuclear waste disposal Admission is free and there is parking. Enquiries to mickbaron1@tiscali.co.uk       Sellafield: Still No Solution to Nuclear Waste Legacy Jill Perry from Allerdale and Copeland Green Party urges opposition to Government plans for deep geological disposal of so-called ‘legacy nuclear waste’, and calls for a halt to proposed nuclear new build THE GREEN PARTY stance opposed to a programme of building new nuclear reactors is exactly right. One of the major reasons for this is the lack of a satisfactory method of dealing with the waste produced. A considerable amount of high & intermediate level waste already exists from the last generation of nuclear plants; the decision to close the MOX plant (which has been a hugely costly white elephant) adds the British and Japanese plutonium to what should now be considered waste. The government has decided that a deep geological disposal facility (DGF) is the answer to the problem for both existing & new build waste. Aware of the sensitivity of siting such a facility, an approach of “volunteerism” has been adopted through a process known as MRWS (Managing Radioactive Waste Safely – how’s that for an oxymoron?). This involved inviting communities (ie local authorities) to volunteer to be considered as potential site for a GDF with of course the carrot of “community benefits” being dangled before them, and having the right of withdrawal (RoW) at any point prior to work commencing. The only authorities coming forward are Allerdale, Copeland & (as the waste management authority for the area, but only for the A&C parts of the county) Cumbria County Council. Unfortunately for the Government proposal the geology of that area was shown to be unsuitable in the 1990s during the Pubic Inquiry into the Nirex’ proposals to bury nuclear waste near Sellafield. This has not prevented things moving forward, in fact a 1.1m budget for this year has been allocated by DECC to the MRWS process. A map of “excluded” areas has been produced, but this was only to exclude areas of mineral deposits that may be extracted in the future. Consideration was not given to fault lines, or rock type (these “would be considered” when more specific sites are identified). In fact the “excluded areas” could still be considered for the head works which could be 20km from the underground repository. The cynical may say this opens up possibility of GDF being under the Lake District National Park. Opinion of geological experts is divided. The Nirex inquiry of the 1990’s suggested that the whole of west Cumbria would be unsuitable - a view still held by some, notably Professor David Smythe. Others feel that it may be possible to find a “patch” (the underground facility would be about 6 square miles) of suitable geology somewhere, though no indication of where has been forthcoming. A suspicion that this delays the probability of local opposition until a later date is not unfounded. The stated objective of volunteerism is that there is demonstrable support in the local community. A decision is soon to be made as to whether to proceed to the next stage of the MRWS process, a stage at which the RoW becomes less clear cut – the following quote is from the DECC clarification: “All parties in a Partnership would be expected to work positively to seek to avoid the need to exercise the RoW”. Allerdale and Copeland Green Party is working with others to oppose the burial of nuclear waste. If the Government insists that this is the correct policy then they must look elsewhere in the country. We believe that as most of the legacy waste is held at Sellafield it should stay there and an alternative to burial should be sought. Meanwhile no new round of nuclear power should be considered The government are currently conducting a ‘consultation’ by Cumbria MRWS which aims to prove that is safe to bury all of our toxic waste underground beneath our feet. The over riding feeling when the consultation is read is that the plan is going ahead anyway and they are just trying to win over public support! We oppose this plan and are actively campaigning to stop this from going ahead Some persuasive work has been done on why this is not a safe plan  by David Smythe Emeritus Professor of Geophysics at University of Glasgow . We would welcome your comments and support Letter to the Guardian by local GP member Michael Baron, MBE Eric Robson may strongly deny 'he was compromised over his work as chairman of Cumbria Tourism' but he is one of the four directors of Osprey Communications Ltd. Osprey's website boasts it had won one of the 'region's biggest contracts' for managing the West Cumbrian MRSW Partnership. It's worth about £1million per annum. And the Partnership process may be set to continue for several years. Robson will surely benefit from this but he is too experienced a communicator not to know what conflict of interest means; and the impact on the county of a giant construction project. In July , one Minister, Charles Hendry,stated 'an aspiration for this date (2040) to be brought forward to 2029' ie the date when the 'geological disposal facility (GDF) should be open to receive high level nuclear waste. No matter this came as a surprise to my local council. Even if only those Guardian readers under 70 will be around to read of opening celebrations , do they know this is a project comparable in size and scope to that of building the Channel Tunnel ? And somewhere ,if the geology is right ,it's going to happen in unspoiled West Cumbria which includes the Lake District, beloved of Alfred Wainwright in whose life and work Robson has more than a passing interest. One estimate for the quantity of spoil excavated to make the GDF ,based on Channel Tunnel figures , is 4 million cubic metres- and that is only derived from the Kent side of the Channel project. Add in the French contribution, that's a total of 7.3 million cubic metres. It's an estimate but gives a good idea of the impact on our landscape and small towns. In Sweden where a GDF is being planned for Forsmark , north of Stockholm, it is reckoned that removing their rock spoil over the duration of construction and at its peak will require 30 to 40 trucks per day. So imagine that happening somewhere here ,somewhere presently unknown where the geology is assessed to be suitable and within the 'territory' of Cumbria Tourism. One cannot conceive of a clearer case of conflct of interest and more so as that body's Chairman will be overseeing its 'brand protection strategy'. As to the intentions of Government,it is evident that notwithstanding 'a right to withdraw' to the participating local authorities (Cumbria County Council , Allerdale and Copeland Borough Councils) at various prescribed stages in the process, para 6.39 of the seminal White Paper of June 2008 says this..'all parties in a Community Siting Partnership should work positively to avoid the need to exercise the RoW (right of withdrawal)'. This right-not-to-be- exercised lies easily with the'aspiration' for an opening for business in 2029; and was further confirmed when a second Minister,Lord Marland , wrote,inter alia, to the leader of Copeland Borough Council on 29th March, after a meeting in Cockermouth with local leaders and chief executives, that he 'was extremely grateful that the West Cumbrian MRWS have understood the national interest'. The true national interest is that the GDF is not sited in West Cumbria (and the Lake District).There are certainly conflcting local interests with socio-economic concerns - employment and housing for example high on the agenda, but one specific local interest is that Cumbria Tourism take steps forthwith to be seen to be , and act as , wholly independent of the ongoing GDF process. Yours etc Michael Baron.MBE Also see a presentation on the effects of the spoil heap by Dr David Smythe spoil 11oct11-1

Launch of Public Consultation

This message is to formally invite you to participate in the West Cumbria MRWS consultation which starts today. The West Cumbria MRWS Partnership has launched a public consultation to consider whether the area should take part in the search for a site for a repository for the UK’s higher activity radioactive waste, without any commitment to have it. A consultation document has been published which sets out the Partnership’s initial views on the issues involved and they now want to know what you think. The consultation period will run until 23rd March 2012.

This is now the time to get involved and decide what you think would be best for the area.

Please go to the Partnership’s website to see details of the consultation. A number of consultation materials are available, including a full consultation document, an overview leaflet and a short introductory DVD. These can all be downloaded from the website, or if you would like a copy of the consultation pack to be sent to you, please email contact@westcumbriamrws.org.uk or call the Freephone number 0800 048 8912.

The DVD that is included in the consultation pack can also be viewed online, and it is a good introduction to the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely process, and the main issues under consideration in this consultation.

If you have questions or want to discuss the issues raised, the Partnership is holding a series of Community Events around the county in January and February. At each event there will be information displays and you will also have the chance to talk to Partnership members and specialist from the Government (the Department for Energy and Climate Change), the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the regulators, and an independent geology expert.

If you want to know more please visit the Partnership’s website. The Partnership’s next e-bulletin will also be issued shortly.

Best wishes

Cath Little

Secretariat for the West Cumbria MRWS Partnership

contact@westcumbriamrws.org.uk

The following resolution was passed at Green Party Conference

We call on Conference to support Allerdale and Copeland Green Party and other local groups, including West Cumbria Friends of the Earth, Radiation Free Lakeland, and CORE in their work to oppose the deep geological disposal plans and to call for alternative disposal methods to be revisited. In particular lobbying local authorities not to proceed to the next stage of the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS)process (January 2012), at which stage the right of withdrawal would be severely compromised.

Public servants and private chats about dumping nuclear waste in West Cumbria

Michael Baron, 8 October 2011

A public consultation is underway on the construction of an underground dump for 70 tonnes of nuclear waste in West Cumbria. Has the decision already been taken during cozy chats in private rooms?

On 10 March 2011 the unelected junior minister for energy and climate change Lord Marland of Odstock, travelled 320 miles north to meet council leaders and chief executives of two West Cumbrian local authorities, the chief executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Copeland MP Jamie Reed. The latter is well known for his spirited advocacy of the so-called Energy Coast, whose flagship Sellafield is the nuclear processing facility formerly known as Windscale, site of the world’s worst nuclear accident before Three Mile Island (USA), Chernobyl and Fukushima.

A dinner party of eleven individuals met in a private room at the four star Trout Hotel in its “idyllic, picture postcard setting on the bank of The River Derwent” to discuss the progress of the ongoing complex and public consultation process towards the construction of a geological disposal facility or GDF — some might name it a toxic unsafe dump — for high level nuclear waste somewhere 1000 metres underground in West Cumbria.

Nearly everything one needs to know about the dump process (which began in October 2009) is in the seminal White Paper (Cmd 7386) "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" published in June 2008. It is proposed that not just the 70 tonnes in some of the cooling ponds at Sellafield, but approximately 4,300 tonnes of spent fuel is to be disposed of in the dump. It's a huge amount of waste. DECC's figures show just under 500,000 cubic metres (or 1/2 million tonnes of waste).

It’s a huge problem that has vexed nuclear reactor operating states such as the UK, Sweden, Finland, France and the USA for more than a decade. The UK, France, Sweden and Finland are leaders in the complex business of researching and developing the right geology and the right engineering.

Popular science writer and convert to nuclear environmentalism, Mark Lynas, in his 2011 book ‘The God Species’ boldly asserts that ‘this is not an ‘unsolved problem. It is not really much of a problem at all’.

When I talked to him recently he claimed waste loses its hazardous nature in a short time and that the deep burial option (see the Finnish film ‘Into Eternity') is an answer to a political problem rooted in fear. While France stores its high level waste, Lynas writes, ‘under the floor in a single room’, it is temporary, and harms no one . There is no environmental crisis. He stressed that exposure to radiation killed no one at Fukushima, and of the 4000 Chernobyl children who contracted thyroid cancer only 15 died. His optimism on risk and nuclear waste is not shared by H.M. Government — why else the 94 page White Paper?

While many environmentalists agree with much of Lynas’s book and its suggested programmes to halt the degradation of planet Earth and maintain life and civilisation, he is clearly wrong on the dangers of undisposed nuclear waste. This is an international concern.

The necessity of a solution to that challenge of what to do with the waste in the UK brought the Minister to Cockermouth.

Of all the communities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, only the ‘Sellafield’ local authorities — Cumbria, Copeland and Allerdale — expressed the required interest in "an approach based on voluntarism and partnership (as) the best means of siting a geological disposal facility" (White Paper para 6.1).The three local authorities have                worked together to develop a myriad of joint projects around a future dump. Each of them has the right to withdraw from the optimistically named “West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership” but according to the White Paper (para 6.39), it is a right that the parties “should work positively to seek to avoid the need to exercise”. Which may be the reason for that Cockermouth dinner.

The leader of Copeland Borough Council, in a post dinner party letter of 14 March, anticipated the move “towards the Decision to Participate stage in the Managing Radioactive Waste process by March 2012”.

Acknowledging that letter the unelected Minister Lord Marland is grateful that “West Cumbria MRWS have understood the national interest” and by implication put constituents’ health and safety aside in favour of the ‘national interest’.

When that is coupled with another Minister from DECC Charles Hendry MP releasing a statement in July that he expects the geological disposal facility to be open to receive radioactive waste in 2029, the anti-dump campaigners in Cumbria realised — one used the word ‘fraud’ — that Government is set on having the radioactive waste dump somewhere in West Cumbria.

The ‘national interest’ may well be forced upon the Partnership and that very well managed process will do its best to coax local opinion even if by the barest majority into a compliant acceptance. That is, acceptance of a deep burial in strata that one eminent, independent geologist Professor David Smythe has described as unsuitable by reason of the complex geology and hydro-geology of West Cumbria.

Moreover the scale of the construction project — up to 30 truckloads of radioactive waste a day from Sellafield to the dump over a period of years has not been imagined by its likely 'host communities' (White Paper para 6.28) wherever they may be in West Cumbria. Nor the sheer quantity of rock to be excavated, stored and then used as backfill in the tunnels where the waste is contained.

Who can stop this destruction of landscape and halt the process towards a dump in the wrong place? The pressure to maintain and increase employment — 1000 new jobs for the construction and future management from labourer and driver to manager and scientist — and a new nuclear reactor planned for the Sellafield site are powerful incentives to the local authorities Partnership saying yes at every stage.

Perhaps only a NIMBY rebellion by parishes and two councils who are not parties to decision-making will prevent the 'national interest’ trumping the local. Perhaps landscape NGOs such as the National Trust and Friends of the Lake District and backed up by the Lake District National Park Authority will say no. Millions of visitors and the tourist industry cannot be ignored and a dump that lies underground the Lake District might put at risk the application for World Heritage status.

Say ‘no’ to the nation’s nuclear waste dump in Cumbria and save the lakes, the fells, the network of fields and villages from destruction by a building and engineering project in a seriously flawed geology, and not so dissimilar in size from the Channel Tunnel.

Michael Baron is a retired solicitor, a Green Party member and an MBE for services to autism. He lives in Cockermouth, Cumbria.