Archive

Archive for February 13, 2019

British Nuclear Dump to Be Placed Near Newry???NOT A CHANCE-TRY BUCKINGHAM PALACE

February 13, 2019 Leave a comment

British Nuclear Dumps To Be Placed  in 6-Counties!!!

And You Thought a Hard Border Would be a provocation!!!

———————————————————————————————————

Nuclear Dumps in 6-Counties

From Damien Hackett on Facebook

It is apparently clear that all the main political parties have agreed that we will store higher activity radioactive nuclear waste here, and in my opinion in The Sperrins.

Anywhere in Northern Ireland is totally unacceptable as we will all be detrimentally effected. https://wp.me/pKzXa-1eP

The UK government plan, executed by DUP/Sinn Fein led Executive and supported by all the other parties, is that NI will be the dumping ground for higher activity nuclear waste. This is in legislation (July 2014 White paper Implementing Geological Disposal). In my opinion The Sperrins will be the prime location. Already significant infrastructural and policy decisions have been made to reinforce this. The siting of this here is one of the key reasons why Brexit is being so ardently pushed through particularly by the DUP. In 2015 the UK government passed legislation that the selection and siting of this Geological Disposal Facility is of national significance, effectively giving them full control to locate it here in the absence of an Executive (just need NIEA to state it is safe, – which based on stance re current applications will be achieved easily).

This motion by Sinn Fein is only a sham.

A council motion will have no impact on this decision. Indeed in January 2018, the CEO of all councils were sent a letter regarding consultation of GDF (storing nuclear waste underground), but none of the councils informed the people of the devaststing contents of this letter.
This was our opportunity to object to this toxic proposal as this was introducing the consultation period. It is too late now, from a council perspective. We do need to voice opposition to this, important not to consent to community involvement, but the official consultation time was last year.

Strange these letter went to the CEO of every district council, headed by all political parties, and not one party decided to speak out against it. This is all part of the various leaderships (all of the political parties) plan.

A smokescreen has been perpetuated that the Mournes will be the location for this GDF. In my opinion, this was never a feasible option and will never be the location for the GDF for various reasons- but it may be a staging/storage area.

Our politicians are all lining up to state it will NEVER be in the Mournes, semantics again. Why are they not categorically making it clear that a GDF is unwelcome anywhere in Northern Ireland, even Ireland.

It is very apparent that The Sperrins is the location destined for this toxic storage, based on current and past policies, political positions, infrastructural works and plans, and governmental policies and commitments.

The first choice for the Site is Dalradian’s gold processing and mine network in Greencastle Co. Tyrone. Conveniently our area straddles sub region 3 and sub region 4 so applicable under both areas. The fact that there are multiply subregions is another ploy designed to divide and conquer our people.

Dalradian’s toxic plans never made any sense; to create the largest cyanide processing plant in Western Europe, in Greencastle, Tyrone, in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, 300m above sea level sited over rivers feeding water treatment plants, 1 km from a pre and primary school (160 pupils), in an area with the highest radon levels in the UK, 60 miles from any coast whereby the toxic pm10 and pm 2.5 dust can infiltrate all, not to mention impact of Chernobyl, radioactivity from uranium, explosives twice per day, with 2 blasts at a time having upto 25 explosives charges at a time, creating the largest militarilsed facility we have seen, using up to 10 tonnes or cyanide per day (1 gram can kill an adult), not to mention the devastation to our environment and to our tourism and agricultural industries.

Bear in mind in April 2017 566 MEPs voted to ban cyanide in mining ASAP with only 8 opposing, based on there having been 30 major cyanide incidents in 25 years. Our civil servants and politicians seem oblivious to this fact with silence and censorship being to the fore.

Given all this not one leader of ANY of the main political parties voiced any concerns but most importantly the leaderships have refused to communicate to any of the groups opposed to this toxic plan (From Omagh, Greencastle, Draperstown, Maghera, Desertmartin etc) and most insulting of they have refused to meet with these groups.
We all know why now!

Dalradian has 122,000 hectares licenced for exploration yet the mine in Greencastle is to be 700m deep with a option to go to 900m. This is low grade gold, it does not make any commercial sense to go down these depths given the other mines.

If planning permission is granted then Dalradian has the right to buy hundreds of hectares land in the Greencastle area.

According to the new rules, community involvement is not essential as the GDF can now be initiated by a large landowner.

As per the information supplied in the catchy video clip and text Radioactive Waste Management Limited (RWM) continues to review the results from the exploration and prospecting process in Greencastle, Tyrone. This surely dispels any myths as to what stage we are at. This proves beyond doubt that Dalradian and RWM are working hand in hand. Bear in mind the various civil services departments have formed a joint working group last Summer to assist Dalradian – we are only at planning, Why?

So it would be safe to presume either all or some of these departments are fully aware of these toxic plans.

If planning permission fails (for Dalradian and even Walkabout), then the NI Executive has at least one further very viable option to initiate this monstrosity in The Sperrins, in my opinion.
Not far from Greencastle is a very big landowner, extremely supportive of the goldmine to date, and indeed having interests in a large scale commercial wind farms, this estate owner will have the option to initiate the GDF process, without community involvement.

Bear in mind DOENI is the decision maker in this instance. The UK has to designate somewhere, to date all voluntary community participation has failed. At some point the UK government will be forced to select a site (within next decade) and we are in pole position.

Why did our DUP/Sinn Fein led executive, obviously supported by the other parties, agree to Northern Ireland accepting Higher Activity radioactive nuclear waste using a GDF? We were sold out as part if the GFA.

This was a devolved decision and like Scotland we could have refused, and we would not be placed under this threat.

The GDF does not have to be operational until 2040s so this allows for the exploitation of our precious metals and minerals including numerous gold and silver mines throughout the north.

Bear in mind the cyanide (or an alternative solution) processing of low grade gold will continue from throughout Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales and Western Europe.

Uranium will be mined in Tyrone, most dangerous of all mining activities, highly radioactive (cancers), plus cobalt, lithium and other precious metals.

Bear in mind the remediation and monitoring of the gold mine after closure will typically cost between £150m to £300m, Dalradian has allowed $16m throughout works and $16m on closure stopping monitoring after 5 years. The impact of acid rock alone lasts thousands of years.

After the devastation caused by this plan, including the decimation of our tourism economy, a GDF, destined to employ several hundreds if not thousands of high paying jobs, guaranteed for hundreds of years, would become an attractive proposition. This will then be a national security site – what does Sinn Fein think of that?

Our only option is for the Executive to be restored, overturn this decision, and the precious metal and minerals agenda, designed purely to make a GDF a more palpable option.

Please get the leaderships of all political parties to take up their seats and get them to publicly make a pledge that a GDF will not be located in Northern Ireland.

If they don’t the UK government will.

A no deal Brexit, or a Brexit with or without the backstop means NI is not protected by EU environmental legislation or by Human Rights legislation. Furthermore coming out of the Euratom Treaty means high activity radioactive nuclear waste can be dumped here from anywhere in the world.

Well done to the leaderships of our traitorous and treacherous political parties.
The only way we can stop this is from a grass roots perspective.

We must all state we do not want a GDF in any subregion of NI, as part of this consultation process.

These are my personal comments, please feel free to share.

——————————————————–Reports that nuclear waste may be stored in Mourne mountains ‘spreading fear’

Newry is one of five areas in the North and 45 in the UK under consideration for the waste including an area between Omagh and Cookstown, Co Tyrone; a location between Belfast and Larne; areas near Coleraine, Co Derry and Ballymoney and Ballycastle in Co Antrim.

Tánaiste will discuss proposal with Northern Secretary later this week  https://wp.me/pKzXa-1eP

Irish Times Wed, Feb 13, 2019, Marie O’Halloran

Tánaiste Simon Coveney said he took on board the concerns of TDs who raised the nuclear issue and that ‘we need more details on it’

Tánaiste Simon Coveney said the Government has been following “with concern” reports that the UK proposes to use the Mourne mountains as a storage area for nuclear waste.

He will discuss the issue with Northern Secretary Karen Bradley when he meets her later this week.

Green Party leader Eamon Ryan said he understood that the Scottish Assembly ruled out such “deep geological storage of nuclear waste” there but that the Northern Ireland Assembly had agreed.

Raising the issue in the Dáil, Mr Ryan said it was not clear “what the parties in government in Northern Ireland have agreed or why they did so”.

But he asked “what if anything is the Government doing about this”.

Independent Louth TD Peter Fitzpatrick said reports that the UK was considering dumping hazardous waste in the Mourne mountains were “spreading fear” rapidly in the border county.

Mr Fitzpatrick said he hoped it was not happening because the North had had no government for the past two years. He said the Northern Secretary and civil servants were keeping departments in operation and were looking for more power.

“We had Sellafield for years and the last thing we want is to have hazardous waste in the Mountains of Mourne.”

Concerns

Mr Coveney said he took on board the concerns of TDs who raised the issue and “we need more details on it”, which he would discuss with Ms Bradley.

Last week Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, unanimously passed a motion opposing locating any nuclear waste facility in the local area.

It follows a report by a UK state-owned company Radioactive Waste Management stating that an area of granite bedrock near Newry stretching from Slieve Gullion to the Mourne mountains might be suitable for a geological disposal facility.

Newry is one of five areas in the North and 45 in the UK under consideration for the waste including an area between Omagh and Cookstown, Co Tyrone; a location between Belfast and Larne; areas near Coleraine, Co Derry and Ballymoney and Ballycastle in Co Antrim.

 

 

 

——————————————————————————–

See articles from Newry.ie and THE ECOLOGIST at the link

https://wp.me/pKzXa-1eP

NO Way, Mrs May!!

From Celtic League

Our Celtic League Irish Secretary sends me details of plans to possibly use the Mournes and Slieve Gullion area as the site for the United Kingdom’s deep secure nuclear waste repository. The Mournes it seems are one of a number of sites on the UK hit list but I think can any of the Celtic countries (sites in Wales also appear apparently) countenance this ‘blot on (or under) the landscape’. Henceforth Ireland will be the land of ‘Saints, scholars and nuclear dumps’ if the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) get their way!

Hard to comprehend nuclear filth to the East of us at Drigg(Cumbria-See Article Further down) being complemented by more dross stored in South Down to the West. I would never see the Mournes in the same light again.

I feel sure Celtic League both at branch level and centrally will oppose any plans to use the Celtic countries as a nuclear tip!

Bernard Moffatt

Celtic League
Assistant General Secretary

——————————————–

From Newry.ie   Here’s the link:

https://www.newry.ie/…/6591-newry-area-under-investigation-…

NEWRY AREA UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL

By: Columba O’Hare

Published: 03 February 2019

The UK Government are investigating the suitability of Newry and surrounding area of Mourne Mountains and Slieve Gullion as a potential venue for the storage of radioactive waste. It’s one of four sub-regions in Northern Ireland that have been deemed potentially suitable for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).

Thirteen regions in total are under investigation including Northern Ireland, Northern England, Pennines and adjacent areas, Eastern England, Wales, Welsh Borderland, Central England, East Anglia, Bristol and Gloucester, London and the Thames Valley, South West England, Hampshire Basin and Wealden District.

A map from the Radioactive Waste Management Report, Northern Ireland, sub-region 2 which includes the Newry area.The blue area shows the presence of ‘higher strength rock’

In a Radioactive Waste Management report it explains the potential suitability of the area for Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) “There are granites and similar strong rocks around Newry, in which we may be able to site a GDF. We would need to do more work to find out whether these rocks have suitable properties and thicknesses in the depth range of interest for a GDF.””

The report adds “In the vicinity of Newry (from Slieve Gullion to Slieve Croob), the basement rocks comprise a sequence of granite masses, several kilometres deep, which were emplaced into the Ordovician and Silurian rocks about 400 million years ago. These Newry Igneous Complex rocks range from granodiorite to granite and are potential HSR host rocks.”

The report was published 18 December 2018 but only just brought to light by Carlingford Lough campaigning group Love Your Lough. You can view a video and report at WWW.GOV.UK

Explaining the theory behind geological disposal the government publication says “In geological disposal, man-made or engineered barriers work together with the geology to provide long-term safety. Placing radioactive waste deep underground puts it far beyond people’s reach, so that it is safe and secure. The rock will shield people from the radiation and, depending on the rock type, will either limit or completely prevent radioactivity from moving towards the surface when other barriers eventually degrade. Disposal deep underground will also ensure that the waste can never be exposed at the surface even in the event of a change in sea level or future ice ages.”

Commenting on the investigations South Down MP Chris Hazzard said “The latest proposal in a video from the British government’s Radioactive Waste Management group that parts of Co Down and Armagh could be used as a site to dispose of nuclear and chemical waste is totally unacceptable.

“Britain cannot use the north as a dumping ground for this hazardous and toxic material.

 

 

Cumbria flooding: Environment Agency issues alert on Drigg nuclear waste site

Marianne Birkby

 

| 31st December 2015

 

Following this month’s intense rainfall in the north of England an Environment Agency alert has highlighted the flood risk to the crumbling nuclear waste dump adjoining Sellafield in Cumbria, writes Marianne Birkby – a dump which remains in use despite its condemnation by the EA in 2005 due to its likely destruction by rising seas. Now it really is time to close the gate on Drigg!

It’s no secret that Cumbria in northern England has been repeatedly hit by torrential rain and wind this month.

But there has been little media focus on what this means for nuclear waste buried at Drigg, the UKs ‘Low Level Waste Repository‘, located near the Sellafield nuclear site on the Cumbrian coast.

Yesterday the Environment Agency issued a flood alert for the River Irt which runs alongside the Drigg nuclear dump. The Environment Agency’s flood map illustrates the River Irt inundating the Drigg site on the southward side with floodwater also encroaching from the northward side.

This has not actually happened yet – the map (right) illustrates risk, not actual flooding. But it certainly gives cause for concern as Storm Frank ditches further enormous quantities of rainfall on the Cumbrian mountains and fells.

On the same day, 30th December, Cumbrian campaign group Radiation Free Lakeland sent a letter to Cumbria County Council asking for Drigg’s gates to be locked to any more nuclear waste given the dangers from flood waters entering the site, eroding the landfill and contaminating land, river and and sea with radioactive waste.

“To describe the UKs nuclear waste site as a ‘Repository’ is putting a spin on the UKs main nuclear dump for ‘low level’ waste”, the letter states. “There is controlled discharge direct to the Irish Sea not to mention run off to the Drigg Stream and River Irt.

“Discharges to the air of radioactive gases are ongoing. According to the British Geological Society the Drigg site is above a regional aquifer. It is also likely to be destroyed by coastal erosion in 500 to 5,000 years (computer modelling can be wrong either way). Much of the waste is long lived and high risk.”

Drigg must stay open, says nuclear industry

Keeping the Drigg site open for continued dumping and extending the capacity of the site is something the nuclear industry are keen to do, seemingly at any cost to the environment. This plan is titled: ‘Low Level Waste Repository Site Optimisation and Closure Works‘.

Even the title of the application is hugely misleading. The date for ‘closure’ is set at 2079. So Drigg would continue to accept nuclear waste for more than six decades to come.

The site would be ‘capped’. Again this is misleading: to ‘cap’ a nuclear dump is akin to putting a cap on a fizzy lemonade bottle which has holes in the bottom. Despite a ‘cap’ the site will continue to leach aqueous emissions to groundwater and gaseous emissions to air for as long as the wastes remain dangerous – which in some cases is the half life of the universe.

The plan suggests that the waste at Drigg is low risk and short lived. Neither is true. As the University of Reading has pointed out:

“The Drigg site uses two disposal systems:
1) An original system operated from 1959 (?) to 1988 comprising a series of parallel trenches excavated into glacial clays, back filled with LLW and covered with an interim water resistant cap.
2) Current disposal of compacted waste placed in steel ISO-freight containers, with void space filled with highly fluid cement based grout. These containers are then disposed of in a series of open concrete vaults.

“Radionuclides with highest activities in the inventory include 3H, 241Pu, 137Cs, 234U and 90Sr, 238U and 232Th.”

This represents a cocktail of relatively short-lived, intensely radioactive species such as the tritium, caesium, strontium and plutonium with half lives measured in years and decades, with daughters such as americium 241 that’s dangerous for centuries, mixed in with uranium and thorium isotopes with half lives as long as 14 billion years.

Serious degradation already under way

But the waste has been dumped at the site with little or no regard to either short or long term hazards. From 1940 to 1988 chemical and radioactive wastes was simply ‘tumble tipped’ into trenches.

Now the waste is compacted into steel shipping containers filled with cement. But the containers, stacked up high on the site, are already suffering from serious degradation, with widespread cracking and corrosion, as the LLW management wrote in 2013:

“in containers at the tops of stacks, the external capping grout has undergone extensive physical degradation and settlement; the lids are not full of grout, and the grout is generally heavily cracked. The state of the capping grout in underlying layers is better; most containers only show sparse cracking. Standing water, sometimes contaminated with low levels of radioactivity, is present in approximately half of the containers at the tops of stacks … Corrosion, sometimes fully penetrating, is present in some container lids at the tops of stacks …”

In June 2005 the Environment Agency wrote“BNFL (Now the NDA) has not yet demonstrated that the wider benefits to the UK from continued LLW disposal on this site outweigh the potential future impacts …

“We have concluded that the 2002 safety cases fail to make an adequate or robust argument forcontinued disposals of LLW because:
(i) Estimates of doses and risks from existing disposals to members of the public in the future significantly exceed current regulatory targets.
(ii) BNFL indicates that the LLWR is likely to be destroyed by coastal erosion in 500 to 5,000 years.
(iii) The 2002 safety cases include insufficient consideration of optimisation andrisk management, to demonstrate that impacts will be as low as reasonablyachievable (ALARA).”

But they have since revised that position and now take a formal view that “the potential for disruption of the site” (by which they refer to inundation by sea and floodwaters) “is an acceptable risk.”

Radiation Free Lakeland agrees with the Agency’s 2005 findings that that the real and present threat of inundation of the Drigg site – which is only about 300m from the sea and lies just 8 metres above mean sea level – by flood or by sea is not an acceptable risk to the people of Cumbria or to our international neighbours.

We also concur with Greenpeace’s 2005 ‘Comments on Environment Agency’s Assessment Documents on Drigg in which they highlight the Agency’s indications that much of the nuclear waste dumped at Drigg on the basis of being ‘low level’ should have been consider ‘intermediate level’ owing to the presence of the long lived isotopes in the mix. As the EA wrote,

“We are concerned by the potential for the destruction of the LLWR by coastal erosion. These concerns appear to be shared by both BNFL and BNFL’s peer review panel (Hilland Irvine 2003). Regardless of the calculated risks, the potential for the destruction of the LLWR by coastal erosion means that disposal of long-lived LLW in the LLWR might be creating undue burdens on future generations.”

Tell it to the birds

Up until 1958 thousands of black headed gulls eggs from the Drigg and Ravenglass gullery were harvested at a time in basketfuls and sold in London. The black headed gull is now on the amber list. The collapse in the mid 1980s of the largest black-headed gull breeding colony in Europe on the Drigg dunes has never been satisfactorily explained.

The official explanation is that a fox did it: “the concentrations of radionuclides in the foods, body tissues and general environment were at least three orders of magnitude too low to have had any effect. The more likely cause of the desertion of the gullery was the combination of an uncontrolled fox population, the severest outbreak of myxomatosis amongst the rabbits since 1954 and the driest May–July period on record, all in the same year (1984).”

Meanwhile childhood leukemia is officially blamed on ‘population mixing’ due to the influx of workers firstly to the 1940 explosives factory (Royal Ordnance Factory) at Drigg and then the ROF at Sellafield.

The irony of this incredible argument is that the plan for three new nuclear reactors at ‘Moorside’ a few miles from Drigg (‘Moorside’ is at the village of Beckermet) would involve a boom and bust influx of thousands of workers along with a further tsunami of nuclear wastes and ever more Driggs.

And let’s not forget the rising sea level problem. The Sellafield site lies within 100m of the sea and most of it is just a few metres above sea level. The nuclear site, already one of the most dangerous and contaminated in Europe, could be inundated by sea water within a century.

Is it really wise to go adding to the problem with a massive complex of three huge new nuclear reactors? When the current problems at the Sellafield / Drigg site have so manifestly not been solved?

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized