The Forecast for UK's Coast: Radioactive
Environment Agency warns "the expected evolution scenario" for nuclear dump in Cumbria is flooding, erosion
New revelations reveal a near certain threat of flooding and erosion that will cause radioactive pollution from a coastal nuclear waste dump in the UK.
In operation since 1959, the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) near Drigg in Cumbria houses nuclear waste from the nearby Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site in addition to military, hospital and oil industry nuclear waste.
An Environment Agency (EA) document dated 9 January 2014 and provided to the Guardian states, "It is doubtful whether the location of the LLWR site would be chosen for a new facility for near-surface radioactive waste disposal if the choice were being made now," and adds that leaking onto the shoreline from the dump will happen "a few hundred to a few thousand years from now."
More shoreline-battering storms and rising sea levels are "the expected evolution scenario," it states.
The document further warns of "the potential appearance on the beach and in its accessible surroundings, during the process of erosion, of discrete items carrying a significant burden of radioactivity individually."
The Guardian's reporting on the document follows the same warnings of "erosion and inundation" at the nuclear dump as reported by the UK's Independent in February.
From the Independent:
[EA] has asked the private sector consortium led by the US engineering firm URS, which is contracted to manage the LLWR to 2018, to look into the long-term need for additional flood defences and the feasibility of building these. [...]
Although the site is considered safe for the next 100 years, there is already a risk of flooding to the southern area of the site. The Environment Agency wants, as a precaution, to make sure that no action is taken at the LLWR that would prevent the future installation of flood defences. A source close to the agency said that the operators of the LLWR had been asked "to consider long-term coastal erosion at the site".
In a 19-page briefing pack given to delegates at a workshop during the consultation, which ended last week, the agency admitted that a recent study showed that "in the future there may be increased risk of flooding to some areas of the site". Ultimately, it predicted "erosion and inundation" of the Drigg dump, although the situation was unlikely to be severe for hundreds of years.
"This is a betrayal," said Peter Cranie, the North West Green Party's European Election candidate, in a statement issued Monday denouncing the news of the Cumbrian coast's future radioactive contamination.
"Cumbrians have been consistently told that the risks were low and that nuclear power would be safe. There is no argument any more - nuclear power was not, is not and will not be safe for Cumbria. Future generations will pay the price for the bad decisions made," Cranie stated.
__________________
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
New revelations reveal a near certain threat of flooding and erosion that will cause radioactive pollution from a coastal nuclear waste dump in the UK.
In operation since 1959, the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) near Drigg in Cumbria houses nuclear waste from the nearby Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site in addition to military, hospital and oil industry nuclear waste.
An Environment Agency (EA) document dated 9 January 2014 and provided to the Guardian states, "It is doubtful whether the location of the LLWR site would be chosen for a new facility for near-surface radioactive waste disposal if the choice were being made now," and adds that leaking onto the shoreline from the dump will happen "a few hundred to a few thousand years from now."
More shoreline-battering storms and rising sea levels are "the expected evolution scenario," it states.
The document further warns of "the potential appearance on the beach and in its accessible surroundings, during the process of erosion, of discrete items carrying a significant burden of radioactivity individually."
The Guardian's reporting on the document follows the same warnings of "erosion and inundation" at the nuclear dump as reported by the UK's Independent in February.
From the Independent:
[EA] has asked the private sector consortium led by the US engineering firm URS, which is contracted to manage the LLWR to 2018, to look into the long-term need for additional flood defences and the feasibility of building these. [...]
Although the site is considered safe for the next 100 years, there is already a risk of flooding to the southern area of the site. The Environment Agency wants, as a precaution, to make sure that no action is taken at the LLWR that would prevent the future installation of flood defences. A source close to the agency said that the operators of the LLWR had been asked "to consider long-term coastal erosion at the site".
In a 19-page briefing pack given to delegates at a workshop during the consultation, which ended last week, the agency admitted that a recent study showed that "in the future there may be increased risk of flooding to some areas of the site". Ultimately, it predicted "erosion and inundation" of the Drigg dump, although the situation was unlikely to be severe for hundreds of years.
"This is a betrayal," said Peter Cranie, the North West Green Party's European Election candidate, in a statement issued Monday denouncing the news of the Cumbrian coast's future radioactive contamination.
"Cumbrians have been consistently told that the risks were low and that nuclear power would be safe. There is no argument any more - nuclear power was not, is not and will not be safe for Cumbria. Future generations will pay the price for the bad decisions made," Cranie stated.
__________________
New revelations reveal a near certain threat of flooding and erosion that will cause radioactive pollution from a coastal nuclear waste dump in the UK.
In operation since 1959, the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) near Drigg in Cumbria houses nuclear waste from the nearby Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site in addition to military, hospital and oil industry nuclear waste.
An Environment Agency (EA) document dated 9 January 2014 and provided to the Guardian states, "It is doubtful whether the location of the LLWR site would be chosen for a new facility for near-surface radioactive waste disposal if the choice were being made now," and adds that leaking onto the shoreline from the dump will happen "a few hundred to a few thousand years from now."
More shoreline-battering storms and rising sea levels are "the expected evolution scenario," it states.
The document further warns of "the potential appearance on the beach and in its accessible surroundings, during the process of erosion, of discrete items carrying a significant burden of radioactivity individually."
The Guardian's reporting on the document follows the same warnings of "erosion and inundation" at the nuclear dump as reported by the UK's Independent in February.
From the Independent:
[EA] has asked the private sector consortium led by the US engineering firm URS, which is contracted to manage the LLWR to 2018, to look into the long-term need for additional flood defences and the feasibility of building these. [...]
Although the site is considered safe for the next 100 years, there is already a risk of flooding to the southern area of the site. The Environment Agency wants, as a precaution, to make sure that no action is taken at the LLWR that would prevent the future installation of flood defences. A source close to the agency said that the operators of the LLWR had been asked "to consider long-term coastal erosion at the site".
In a 19-page briefing pack given to delegates at a workshop during the consultation, which ended last week, the agency admitted that a recent study showed that "in the future there may be increased risk of flooding to some areas of the site". Ultimately, it predicted "erosion and inundation" of the Drigg dump, although the situation was unlikely to be severe for hundreds of years.
"This is a betrayal," said Peter Cranie, the North West Green Party's European Election candidate, in a statement issued Monday denouncing the news of the Cumbrian coast's future radioactive contamination.
"Cumbrians have been consistently told that the risks were low and that nuclear power would be safe. There is no argument any more - nuclear power was not, is not and will not be safe for Cumbria. Future generations will pay the price for the bad decisions made," Cranie stated.
__________________