31st July 2006

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has today published its final recommendations for  dealing with the UK's radioactive waste - advocating burying it deep underground, after decades of 'interim storage' to allow for intensified research to address 'uncertainties' (i).

Stroud District Green Party Spokesperson Cllr. Philip Booth, who helped compile Green party's submissions to CoRWM (ii), commented: "The UK has been creating radioactive waste for 50 years, and today's report shows that we still don't know what to do with it. Quite simply, they have decided out of sight, out of mind is the best option. The term disposal is misleading - it would be more honest to talk about disguising the problem. Nuclear waste must be stored in above ground facilities to allow easy access for when things go wrong - and to ensure close monitoring. Burying toxic waste deep in the earth is an unproven, unsustainable and unpredictable route to follow."

Philip Booth, who is a Stroud District Councillor, added: "We have miscalculated in the past with some nuclear storage containers already completely disintegrating. Fortunately those containers have been refurbished, but this experience provides some indication of the difficulty of assuring the lifetime of waste containers for hundreds of thousands of years deep in the ground where goodness knows what geological or climactic changes will impact. Scientists have already that possible glaciation and gas generation by microbes could impact seriously yet CoRWM ignore this.”


Impact of committees findings on new nuclear reactors

Philip Booth added: "It is ludicrous to embark on a new round of nuclear power build whilst we are still stumped with what to do with the present 47 000 tonnes of dangerous radioactive material our current nuclear power stations have produced. It is perhaps no surprise the government were so careful to complete their energy review BEFORE CoRWM had reported - the committees failure to find a 'solution' to the dangerous problem of nuclear waste, with only exorbitantly expensive 'management' proposals to offer, would have silenced many of the advocates of a new generation of dirty, dangerous and uneconomic power stations (iii)."

Philip Booth concluded: "CoRWM have not provided a solution, because there are none that provide any certainty of safety and containment. The committee's findings will be seized as a way forward by the nuclear lobby, when the only guaranteed things they offer is continuing liability and risk. For the future, the best way of dealing with nuclear waste is not to create it in the first place."

Several sites in the West Country were secretly identified for nuclear waste by NIREX, the industry company originally set up to deal with nuclear waste. These included Hinkley Point, Norton Manor near Taunton, Lundy Island and Chepstow College - Gloucestershire sites include Aston Down, Berkeley, Hardwicke, Quedgeley, South Cerney and 4 others (iv).



Notes for Editors:

(i) The key elements of the recommendations are:
- In the long term, disposal of radioactive waste deep underground, an option known as geological disposal.
- Robust interim storage, in recognition of the fact that the process leading to the creation of suitable facilities for disposal may take several decade
- An equal partnership between government and potential host communities based on a willingness to participate
- The immediate creation of an oversight body to begin the process of implementation

See: http://www.corwm.org.uk/content-0

(ii) Glos Green party report:
http://www.glosgreenparty.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1065&Itemid=72
Glos Green party report on CoRWM's draft recommendations:
http://www.glosgreenparty.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1276&Itemid=72

(iii) The Government's report on the Energy Review was released on 11 July 2006: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/

(iv) Nirex have said that they wont use this list as a 'starting point of any new site selection exercise', but have said: "the geology in the UK has not changed, so sites that were considered to be potentially suitable previously on geological grounds could be considered suitable in a future site selection process. Equally, given the developments that have occurred, sites where the geology was viewed as less favourable previously could be included in the new site selection process. 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."
http://www.nirex.co.uk/477002/index5.html