|
31st October 2005, updated 14th November 2005
Fears for Gloucestershire
Greens expressed deep concern that a cargo of radioactive nuclear waste sat in a railway siding for hours, surrounded by houses and less than 100 metres from a school (i). The weekly train was on route from Bridgwater in Somerset via Cam, Stonehouse and Gloucester to Sellafield in Cumbria.
Photo: Nuclear flask train (Reproduced here with permission of Martin Bond ©)
More re photo: Flasks continue
to be transported by rail through many parts of the country including Gloucestershire, from nuclear power
stations to Sellafield. Such flasks contain up to 5 million
curies (37,000 TBqs) of highly radioactive material, including
enough plutonium for a nuclear bomb - hence the concerns about
safety. Here a flask (concealed within the white metal casing)
passes close to a block of flats in Kentish Town on the North
London line.
Philip Booth, a Gloucestershire Green party spokesperson said:
"Incredibly, this material, which could be used to make dirty bombs, is
being left on a flatbed rail carriage for hours before being
transported to Sellafield. It is reported that locals, including
children, were able to walk right up to it unchallenged. You wonder if
this has also happened in Gloucestershire if the train has to stop on
route?"
Philip Booth said: "Already it has been reported that July's London
suicide bombers were planning to hit a nuclear target. Blowing up or
stealing this lethal freight could lead to radioactive fall-out making
a huge area uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Exposure for just 30
seconds to the radioactive material inside the load of spent fuel rods
would mean certain death."
The Sunday Mirror has reported that bosses at nuclear train operators
Direct Rail last night vowed to tighten security after the Mirror told
them about the lapse and gave them reports that radioactive waste from
the Hinckley Point nuclear power station in Somerset was regularly left
at the rail sidings in Bridgwater after being transported there by
road. It is then transported north on our old rail system at speeds of up to 55mph.
Call for enquiry
Philip Booth said: "Two years ago Greens called for 'a full, open
public inquiry into all the issues surrounding the movement of this
fuel'. We are still waiting. That time we made the call following a
derailment of a fortunately empty, nuclear waste train in Bridgwater
(iii). Other incidents have also occurred (iv) and we are concerned
that radioactive contamination has been found in the train wagon dirt
and in soil (v). Indeed ballast had to be removed from the sidings
because it was so contaminated. This latest lapse with the trains left
in the sidings unguarded makes the need for an enquiry all the more
urgent."
Waste should be stored on site
Philip Booth said: "The radioactive material should be dry-stored
on site, preventing the risk-laden movement across the country (vi).
After the radioactivity has somewhat reduced they could be moved to
long term storage; of course as yet we still have no solution to the
problem of storing nuclear waste in the long term."
Philip Booth added: "Transporting nuclear waste is fraught with difficulties and potential dangers. We now learn last Tuesday that a 15 year old roll on, roll off ferry is being used to ship radioactive cargo from Sellafield, in Cumbria, to Sweden and other continental ports. It is absolutely irresponsible in this day and age where we are requiring super tankers carrying oil to have double hulls to protect our marine environment that these dangerous cargoes are being transported on an ex roll on roll off ferry with a single engine and single hull through some of the most populated areas of Europe!"
See also news of ship travelling in South-West
Notes:
(i) See Sunday Mirror report (30th October 2005)
(ii)
The Sunday Mirror quotes Dr John Large, an independent nuclear expert,
saying: "Every one of these trains would be a potential target for
terrorists. The flasks of fuel rods could be easily penetrated by a
rocket-propelled grenade. If a flask was penetrated it would cause
radiation over a wide area. The contents are intensely radioactive.
Exposure for just 30 seconds would mean death."
(iii) March 2003 Green party news release
(iv)
The nuclear industry claims the flasks are strong enough to withstand
an accident but independent experts suggest that if a flask fell
awkwardly they would not be as strong as claimed. Various examples of
accidents including:
http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/news/Nuclear_train_crash_110602.htm
http://www.cnduk.org/INFORM~1/trandang.htm
(v)
There have been reports of radioactive material being found at loading
and unloading depots, in the grease that builds up on the waste flasks,
in the train wagon dirt and in soil. Radioactive contamination up to 25
times the international safety limit has been found on the outside of
spent nuclear fuel flasks travelling between Britain and mainland
Europe. Scandals in France and Germany about badly contaminated flasks
have led to suspension of transporting nuclear waste several times.
(vi)
Magnox fuel run in BNFL stations differs from AGR fuel run in British
Energy stations. No method has been develpoed for local dry storage of
Magnox fuel which is technically feasable for AGR (Advance Gas Reactor)
fuel. Green groups advocate the local dry storage of highly radioactive
fuel to minimise risks from accidents and increased routine radiation
doses to people who live alongside railway lines. The fuel flasks allow
a small but cumilative gamma dose to the public and caesium particles
leach out of the flask paintwork and can be inhaled by local people,
possibly triggering cancer. Government Planning laws require a safety
distance of 100 metres of inhabited buildings and gardens from
stationery flasks anf fifty metres from moving flasks. These
regulations are flouted on every passage of flasks from Hinkley through
the west-country.
CND agree writing: The fuel rods are moved to Sellafield in order to be
reprocessed. However there is no physical need for reprocessing. This
began because the primary purpose of Britain’s first nuclear reactors
at Calder Hall in Cumbria and Chapelcross in Scotland was not to
produce electricity but plutonium for nuclear weapons. The rods can
instead be dry stored, either at some central point or at the various
nuclear power stations. It is often stated that the fuel rods from the
early Magnox nuclear power stations have to be reprocessed because of
corrosion problems. This is not true. It only becomes a problem because
the rods are placed in large cooling ponds at the power stations,
waiting rail transportation. It is this contact with water that starts
the process of corrosion. The Scottish nuclear power stations at
Hunterston and Torness actually applied for and got permission to build
on-site dry stores some years ago. BNFL reacted by negotiating new,
presumably more attractive contracts. Of course the fuel rods would
have to be moved eventually to a long term, secure nuclear waste
storage site but since BNFL’s plans were recently rejected, no such
site will be ready for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, rods in
dry store would be gradually losing their radioactivity and the
eventual bulk shipments would be much safer than one train every week.
|