Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The UK Magically Declares Highly Radioactive Waste Non Radioactive and Dustbins it throughout the Kingdom. This is not a joke. The amounts effectively declared “non-radioactive” (approx. 4000 Bq/kg) and sent to landfill are 6 x more radioactive than allowed for EU food (4 x greater than UK food rules; 40 x greater than Japanese rules) and allow 400 x more tritium (40,000 Bq/liter) than legally allowed in water. Clearly this will impact agriculture and drinking water. The becquerels will actually be much higher for fluffy things, which can be compacted, because this is based on volume and not weight. A small box which is 0.1m3 (47 cm x 47 cm x 47 cm) can hold up to 400,000 Becquerels (radioactive emissions per second). It is stated, in the definition of VLLW, that “Controls on disposal of this material, after removal from the premises where the wastes arose, are not necessary.” (p.7 Appendix A).

Comment by 21 April: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-an-update-of-the-uk-strategy-for-the-management-of-solid-low-level-radioactive-waste-from-the-nuclear-industry More importantly: Register to vote in the UK General Election by 20 April; Vote 7 May. MP Ed Davey (Lib Dem) and Sandip Verma of the UK DECC want to dustbin 4,000,000 Becquerels per cubic metre (≈ 1.3 cubic yards) even of very long-lived radionuclides, like plutonium, into “unspecified” destinations with municipal, commercial or industrial waste. This is already being done at three UK sites, and in Tennessee USA, but could spread to the thousands of landfill sites throughout the UK, by magically declaring the waste non-radioactive. (To find your nearest landfill: http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37823.aspx )

And, actually, once it is declared non-radioactive – sometimes called “exempt” waste, then it could end up anywhere couldn’t it? The amounts of radionuclides could actually be higher, for how do they measure the radiation? Does a vehicle pass a Geiger counter? Is the counter hand-held? The container itself will keep the most internally dangerous radionuclides – alpha and beta – from being counted. Depending on the size, an even more highly radioactive object could be surrounded by less radioactive dirt, which would keep it from being properly measured. Also, the more radiation dumped into landfill, the more radiation is in the landfill. It is cumulative, except as it eventually leaches out.

Why would they do such a thing? Because it’s easier they say!

Here is their non-sensical statement on the matter:
Use of landfill void is not, in principle, desirable. However, it is preferable to disposal at the LLW Repository, because there is only one LLW Repository; capacity there is much more limited than available landfill capacity, and disposal at the LLW Repository uses much more resources than disposal in landfill.” (p.25, Non-Technical Summary) (Emphasis our own)

Think of each becquerel as random ammunition rounds or shots – some rifles, some shotguns, some machine guns, some random through the streets (external radiation), some inside your house (internal radiation). Maybe you and your children will live, maybe your bodies can heal the wounds, but with this overwhelming amount the odds don’t look good. They call this “Very Low Level waste” (VLLW), but it clearly is not. Besides the obvious risks of it leaching into the water, landfills often catch fire. Additionally this poses risk to refuse (waste) workers, whether those transporting it or squashing it down. Landfills are now lined but get holes in the liner and since the waste has been declared non-radioactive, there will be no reason to monitor the leachate for radiation. Lincolnshire, which has the best web site on the landfill topic, mentions sites which take only dirt and rubble. One can guess that these wouldn’t be lined and are where much of the radioactive rubble will end up.

Head of DECC MP Ed Davey clearly needs to be not only booted out of Parliament, but sent to Bedlam Mental Hospital.
MP Ed Davey and Baroness Sandip Verma in Bedlam
Although his brother has worked as a lawyer for French State owned EDF (which owns almost all UK nuclear reactors), it remains unfathomable that he would allow the British people to be exterminated by his policies. And this is a long-term policy of extermination of the British people. The DECC science advisor is John Loughhead, formerly a mechanical engineer at French Alstom, which makes turbines for the nuclear (and non nuclear) industry. This is a useless background for this topic. Where is a biologist, biochemist or radiologist?

No one listed on the DECC web site appears to have an appropriate background to understand the repercussions of their actions. Is this the problem? Are they functionally illiterate, and incapable of reading about the dangers on their own? Sandip Verma who is in charge of spear-heading all of this has a low level business degree, which is inappropriate to the task.

As the owner of a Domiciliary Care Services company she actually benefits when people get cancer, alzheimer’s, and other radiation-induced disabilities. This is a conflict of interest. http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/baroness-verma/3790 https://www.gov.uk/government/people/baroness-verma

Verma may use Sikh belief to justify her crimes, for she is an India-born Sikh. According to one Sikh web site, children are born disabled because of bad deeds in a previous life. Is this why she finds poisoning the environment with radionuclides, which cause genetic defects, morally acceptable? Presumably Sikhs believe the same thing for people who get cancer? This is a wrong understanding of karma. There is actually group karma, as well as individual karma. There is even instant karma. In the end, the entire world is in group karma together, even if you don’t believe in such things as reincarnation. Environmental crimes have repercussions which go well beyond the individual, and often for many generations. Nuclear crimes cause genetic defects, which can be inherited, and are for an eternity. The only thing which prospers in a radioactive environment is mold.

The DECC reckons that there will be about 4.2 million cubic metres of “Low Level” Waste (LLW) over the course of the next 100 years. They say that this is mostly radioactive dirt and rubble, (presumably from nuclear decommissioning). Their estimated total is 4.5 million cubic metres of High, Intermediate, Low and Very Low Level Wastes. As can be seen here, that’s not much, and they could easily put it above ground or slightly below ground, so as not to blight the landscape.
Westminster London Nuclear Waste Update 2
(The amount is mentioned as uncertain, by the DECC, due to possible new build.) Of course, the above image would be if they dump it all in together, which is what they plan to do when they dustbin or bury it. It would take more space to organize it properly. How much more could it take? Perhaps twice as much space to have proper aisles? A bit more to have room for fire trucks? However, anything is superior to dumping the radioactive randomly in the environment.

Two or three of these might do the trick. There are uglier things in Greater London. Certainly those who think windmills are a blight on the horizon, won’t like one of these! If you think this is ugly and don’t want high levels of radiation in your food and water, then you need to actively oppose new nuclear and campaign for a new government, which will protect you and the environment.
NASA vehicle Assembly Building

Nonetheless, this raises the question of if this dustbin strategy is about taking old French, German and even Japanese nuclear reactors. When people woke up and blocked the underground waste dump in the Ayrshire Hills of Scotland, 35 years ago, it was partly because they found out that it was for Japanese Nuclear Waste and not just British waste.

During the 1980 Mullwharcher inquiry about proposed dumping of nuclear waste in the Ayrshire Hills, the late Willie MaRae famously said: “Nuclear waste should be stored where Guy Fawkes put his gunpowder.” If the UK Parliament wants new nuclear so badly, then they should indeed be willing to store it under parliament. You can be certain, that if all nuclear waste were stored under Legislative and Executive buildings, then it would be very well-protected, well-funded, and there would be no explosions or leaks allowed. If we had been able to find information regarding underground bunker size, then we would have used that. It should go without saying that this is meant as an exercise, to have an idea of the size.

It also raises the question of why a deep geological repository would be needed at all, except perhaps to take nuclear waste from the European Continent and possibly Japan? Some may recall that French State owned EDF (for which Ed Davey’s brother worked as a lawyer) recently wanted to use Scottish nuclear reactor sites (EDF operated) for extra nuclear waste storage – perhaps as a nuclear waste staging ground. Germany has a track record of repeatedly sending its radioactive waste to countries with weaker standards (US, Russia) and German radioactive sludge is known to have ended up on what was Italy’s best farmland, now the triangle of death, with mafia help. The proposed French nuclear waste dump is in clay upon thermal springs; the German ones in leaking or collapsing salt mines.

The UK allows incineration of radioactive waste, dangerous compression of the LLW metal barrels into waste “pucks”, which then are apparently put in metal shipping containers and buried at Dounreay, which opens up all sorts of problems of corrosion, flammable gas creation-explosions, ocean pollution, etc. They recycle radioactive metal to add to the horrors. They even mention using the radioactive rubble as landfill for construction. Read more details in excerpts below.

UK Low Level Waste Comment period ends 21 April 2015:
http://www.nda.gov.uk/2015/01/consultation-solid-low-level-waste-from-the-nuclear-industry/ The true deadline, however, is the General Election of May 7, 2015 (registration deadline 20 April). It is your chance to choose a candidate who will not effectively declare long-lived radioactive waste non-radioactive simply to get rid of it. It is necessary to examine direct and indirect ties to the nuclear industry, including mining and construction, and including some of the unions. Ed Davey and Gordon Brown show that one must examine family members, as well. It is a difficult task, but not so difficult as having cancer or caring for disabled children or those with cancer, and watching them die. Would you really want to leave them in the hands of Sandip Verma who may believe that they deserve the fate, which she is pushing? It is also important to save the animals who have no vote, and cannot voice their sufferings.

Some relevant excerpts from the Consultation (emphasis added, our comments in brackets)
From p. 7, Vol. 2, Appendix A:
(a) in the case of low volumes (‘dustbin loads’) of VLLW “Radioactive waste which can be safely disposed of to an unspecified destination with municipal, commercial or industrial waste (“dustbin” disposal), each 0.1m3 of waste containing less than 400 kilobecquerels (kBq) of total activity or single items containing less than 40 kBq of total activity. [This 400,000 becquerels in a small box which is approximately 47 cm x 47 cm x 47 cm, i.e. 18.5 in x 18.5 in. x 18.5 in].

[Despite the fact that carbon and hydrogen are the basis of life and the dangers of radioactive carbon and hydrogen are increasingly recognized, they allow 4,000,000 Becquerels in this same small box size.]
For wastes containing carbon-14 or hydrogen-3 (tritium):

(i) in each 0.1m3, the activity limit is 4,000 kBq for carbon-14 and hydrogen-3 (tritium) taken together

(ii) for any single item, the activity limit is 400 kBq for carbon-14 and hydrogen-3 (tritium) taken together

Controls on disposal of this material, after removal from the premises where the wastes arose, are not necessary.” [Clearly the waste can end up anywhere! Not just in landfills! And refuse (waste) workers will be unknowingly exposed. The landfill operators will not know to test the leachate; those testing leachate will also be exposed! This is criminal!]

[Four Megabecquerels is 4 million becquerels per tonne, i.e. 4,000,000 per 1,000 kg or 4,000 becquerels per kilogram, which for items which weigh approximately the same as water is exactly the same! The difference is that it is weight instead of volume.]
(b) in the case of high volumes of VLLW “Radioactive waste with maximum concentrations of four megabecquerels per tonne (MBq/te) of total activity which can be disposed of to specified landfill sites. For waste containing hydrogen-3 (tritium), the concentration limit for tritium is 40MBq/te. Controls on disposal of this material, after removal from the premises where the wastes arose, will be necessary in a manner specified by the environmental regulators”. For the tritium this would be 40,000,000 becquerels per 1,000 kg. At room temperature a liter of water weighs about one kg. Thus, this is 40,000 becquerels per liter of water, which exceeds the UK and EU rules of 100 becquerel per liter by 400 fold. Although they state tritium, rather than tritiated water, in the UK you can be certain that it will quickly become tritiated water.]

From p. 4: “LLW is defined as radioactive waste that is below 4 Gbq of alpha activity per tonne and below 12 GBq of beta-gamma activity per tonne.” [This is 4 Billion Becquerels of alpha per tonne – 4 Million Becquerels per Kilogram; and 12 Billion Becquerels of beta-gamma per tonne (12 Million per Kg).]
UK Strategy for the Management of Solid Low Level Waste from the Nuclear Industry, Strategic Environmental Assessment Environment and Sustainability Report, Consultation draft Volume 2 – the Appendices January 2015https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398407/LLW_SEA_ESR_Vol_2_Appendices_Rev_3_Jan_2015.pdf (Appendix A – Glossary of technical terms and abbreviations: VLLW, p. 7) http://www.nda.gov.uk/2015/01/consultation-solid-low-level-waste-from-the-nuclear-industry/

From the Non-Technical Summary:
Disposal at landfill sites
This option implies co-disposal of LLW with other waste at established landfill sites. Any environmental impacts associated with the establishment and management of the landfill site as such are therefore separately accounted for as part of the original consenting and licencing process for the landfill site itself.
” [In other words, there will be no environmental impact statement for adding nuclear waste.]

Use of landfill void is not, in principle, desirable. However, it is preferable to disposal at the LLW Repository, because there is only one LLW Repository; capacity there is much more limited than available landfill capacity, and disposal at the LLW Repository uses much more resources than disposal in landfill. Disposal of LLW will not significantly deplete available landfill void – the total of all LLW expected to arise over more than 100 years is well under 1% of the total volume of landfill space available, and only a proportion of the total LLW is likely to be sent to landfill.” (p. 25)

Lies on p. 33:
The public dose limit for radiological discharges to atmosphere is 1mSv per year. This limit is set conservatively so that even discharges at these limits would not pose a significant risk to human health or areas of biodiversity.“, (p.33) [This is false. 1 mSv is supposed to be total facilities and the output of 0.1 mSv to 0.3 mSv recommended by the ICRP as a maximum per facility is already high. According to the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR report, an exposure of 100 mSv would cause leukemia or cancer in one out of one hundred people (or more), whether it is a one time exposure or spread over a lifetime. Where does that 1mSv per year exposure go? It either goes into the water, the air, perhaps it seeps into the ground? If it goes no where, then in around 14 years there is already a one in one hundred risk of getting cancer or leukemia. The risk is higher for pregnancies-small children. Since it’s based on lifetime: in the first year, there would be 1mSv, in the second year you would have the first year exposure of 1mSv plus for year two the 1mSv still there from year one and a new 1mSv, giving you a lifetime exposure of 3 mSv by year two, and so forth.]

From the Non-technical Report:
Key environmental issues for the Strategy to address

The following environmental problems are those which are most relevant for this Strategy:

 The total quantity of low level radioactive waste existing in the UK, or forecast to be created in the UK, is greater than the total amount of existing disposal capacity and other management routes are therefore required;

The construction and operation of new nuclear power stations will add to the total amount of waste and extend the period over which waste is generated;

 Long-term environmental changes, including coastal erosion, climate change, increased flood risk etc., potentially pose a risk to the long term integrity of disposal facilities;

 Groundwater – the groundwater bodies under some nuclear industry sites are contaminated and ongoing management of LLW must not make the situation worse;

 Transport – waste should be managed as close as possible to its source and with few movements. However, for LLW, the nearest appropriate waste management facility may be at a significant distance from the source of the waste.” (p. 4) “Non-technical summary – Overview of the Strategy

Who will manage the waste?

NDA is the key overseeing/coordinating body for the management of LLW in the UK, and the owner of much of the waste that is to be managed. The LLW Repository in West Cumbria is owned by NDA and managed by LLW Repository Ltd.

It is a principle of the Strategy that new waste management routes will emerge through the supply chain, mainly the UK waste management industry. This has been achieved in the first four years of implementation through the establishment of a waste services framework.

How will the waste be managed?

Options for the method of waste management focus around the waste hierarchy – i.e. can LLW be treated such that a higher proportion of it can be managed at higher levels of the waste hierarchy and a lower proportion sent for disposal?

Options that emerge from the Strategy include:

 Decay storage of LLW – i.e. safe storage of LLW that contains radioactive materials with short half-lives, until the materials have naturally decayed to a lower level of
radioactivity and the waste is open to a wider range of options for its management;
 Decontamination – this can open up a wider range of options for management of materials, including recycling;
Reuse LLW– some materials could be reused in construction, landscaping, shielding etc., where suitable opportunities arise, to avoid the need to consign it as waste;
 Recycling of LLW – some LLW materials are open to recycling either within or outside the UK nuclear industry, often after decontamination;
Incineration – to reduce the volume of combustible wastes or to recover energy.
However, it is unlikely that the quantity of combustible LLW currently co-combusted with hazardous and clinical waste would be enough for energy recovery unless it was burnt together with other, non-radioactive waste;
 Treatment or volume reduction of metallic LLW by melting – melting can be used either to decontaminate metallic LLW or to reduce its volume prior to disposal;
 Volume reduction – other than incineration or melting, volume reduction can be achieved by compaction, either at low pressure in drums or at high pressure into pucks;
 Continued disposal at the LLW Repository – using either existing packaging and disposal practices or alternative, optimised practices to maximise efficiency, minimise resource use and optimise the use of the existing engineered facilities at the repository;
 Disposal of LLW at landfill sites – lower activity LLW can be disposed of at suitably permitted landfill sites, with other waste. Three such sites have been authorised;
 Disposal of LLW in non-engineered surface facilities – using new non-engineered facilities (e.g. dedicated landfill-style facilities or in-situ disposal) for the disposal of LLW to avoid the need for engineered disposal vaults such as those at the LLW Repository;
 Disposal of some LLW in a Geological Disposal Facility – disposal of LLW that contains
problematic radioisotopes, such as those with very long half-lives, with Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) in a deep Geological Disposal Facility (GDF; covers LLW from England and Wales only as Scottish policy is for near-site near-surface disposal)
“.(p.5)”Non-Technical Summary – Overview of the Strategy

Where will the waste be managed?

Strategic options for where the waste could be managed are described below. The way in which the waste is managed limits the options available for where it is managed. For instance, some options are only available locally, others at a single national site, and so on.

 A single national facility near Sellafield – such as the existing LLW Repository in West Cumbria, or a new similar facility built in the same general area;
 A single national facility elsewhere – a new facility outside the area around Sellafield;
 A small number of regional facilities – e.g. manage LLW at several smaller sites on a regional basis, rather than a single national facility;
 Multiple local facilities on, or close to nuclear industry sites – i.e. manage LLW at a number of local sites receiving LLW from one or more nearby nuclear industry sites;
 International facilities – transport LLW overseas for treatment.

When will any new waste treatment routes be available?

Each option for how or where waste could be treated has implications for when that option may be available. Options that are available now, either in full or in part, include:
 Continued disposal of LLW at the LLW Repository and at Dounreay (when open);
 Decontamination facilities are available now at some UK sites, and internationally;
 Some facilities exist for waste recycling on existing nuclear industry sites;
 One nuclear industry site (Hartlepool) has its own small-scale incinerator. Incinerators are available now at three commercial sites to serve the rest of the nuclear;
 Compaction and/or high force compaction is available at some existing sites;
 The potential for reuse of some LLW, exists now;
 Disposal at landfill sites –three landfill sites are now available for disposal of some LLW;
 Disposal in non-engineered surface facilities –in-situ disposal could be implemented now, with regulatory approval. Dedicated landfill-style facilities would require new sites and new consents and are not therefore available yet.

Some options require development of new facilities or capabilities. These options are not available immediately and are subject to a variety of technical, practical and regulatory hurdles.

 B<uild a new LLW Repository – not likely to be required under current strategic plans;
 Wider availability of decontamination facilities and broader capabilities in the UK;
 There are no metal melting facilities in the UK, although overseas facilities are used;
 The availability of decay storage is subject to the provision of suitable storage capability and is generally considered on a case-by-case basis;
 Energy recovery – incineration capacity for LLW exists now, but at facilities which do not have the capability to make recovering energy economical;
 Deep disposal of long-lived LLW in a Geological Disposal Facility – creation of a GDF is a very long-term project that is in its early stages.
“(p.6)

Approximately one million cubic metres of radioactive waste has already been disposed of. The total predicted volume of existing waste and waste forecast to arise over the next 100 years or so is approximately 4.5 million cubic metres, of which 94% is LLW (including ‘very low level waste’, or VLLW). Most LLW is building rubble, soil and steel items such as framework,…” (p. 11)
UK Strategy for the Management of Solid Low Level Waste from the Nuclear Industry, Strategic Environmental Assessment
Environment and Sustainability Report, Consultation draft,
Non-Technical Summary, January 2015, © Crown copyright 2015
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-an-update-of-the-uk-strategy-for-the-management-of-solid-low-level-radioactive-waste-from-the-nuclear-industry

Read the Comments by Nuclear Free Local Authorities here: http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_UK_LLW_response.pdf

Information regarding landfills:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-warned-it-will-run-out-of-landfill-sites-in-eight-years-2021136.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/26/abandoned-landfills-polluting-uk-rivers-research-finds

About a third of the 500 landfill sites taking significant amounts of biodegradable waste have gas controls and many sites extract the gas for energy recovery.http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/estates/environment/wasteandrecycling/whyrecycle/landfillfacts
In 1994 there were approximately 4000 landfill sites in the UK: http://www.lordgrey.org.uk/~f014/usefulresources/aric/Resources/Fact_Sheets/Key_Stage_4/Waste/03.html
The clearest details regarding landfills: http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/recycle-for-lincolnshire/landfill
More info regarding numbers of landfills in the thousands: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/RIN263.pdf/$FILE/RIN263.pdf
Local maps of active and inactive landfills:
http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37823.aspx
http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=357683&y=355134&scale=1&layerGroups=default&ep=map&textonly=off&lang=_e&topic=waste

According to the following post, the proposed deep geological dump is 25 km2, i.e. 5 km x 5 km or 5,000 m x 5,000 m. https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/the-gift-that-no-one-wants/ Assuming 10 m of usable storage height, it would hold 250 million m3; assuming 20 m of storage height it would be 500 million m3 of storage space. If it were 50 m, then it would be 1.25 billion m3 storage space. 25 km2 is 6,177 acres. This clearly would exceed needs by the UK and suggests that it may be used for German, French, Swiss and Japanese waste. There is already foreign waste in the UK at Sellafield and Dounreay.

Some information about the size of WIPP in New Mexico USA:
If the WIPP site is eventually determined to be suitable for the disposal of TRU waste, the underground disposal area is planned to cover 100 acres. It will have a design capacity of over 2 million cubic meters, or about 850,000 barrels, of TRU waste.http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/radwaste/402-k-94-001-tru.html
100 acres is 0.404 km2 and holds 2 million m3 x 61 is 122 million m3
25 square kilometers is 6 0177.634 acres. A larger area is given for WIPP in some places but it is apparently for surface storage and future expansion.
“WIPP has permanently disposed of more than 89,000 cubic meters of TRU waste — enough to fill more than 35 Olympic-size swimming pools” http://energy.gov/em/articles/waste-isolation-pilot-plant-national-transuranic-program-have-banner-year-2013

Some of the information on WIPP seems to mix up cubic feet and cubic meters, which is a big mix up. However, this web site has estimates which are roughly the same as the US EPA site, so these two sites are probably accurate: “The WIPP facility is limited by the Land Withdrawal Act to receiving up to 168,520 cubic meters of contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) waste (equivalent to approximately 810,000 55-gallon drums) and up to 7080 cubic meters of remote-handled (RH-TRU) waste (equivalent to about 7500 canisters.)http://www.cardnm.org/repository_a.html

Probably a good size for UK Low Level Radioactive Waste with proper aisles, spaces: “The Boeing Everett Factory, in Everett, Washington, is an airplane assembly building owned by Boeing. Located on the northeast corner of Paine Field, it is the largest building in the world by volume at 13,385,378 m3 (472,370,319 cu ft) and covers 399,480 m2 (98.3 acres).[1] It is where wide-body Boeing 737 Boeing 747s, 767s, 777s, and the new 787 Dreamliner are assembled. http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Everett_Factory
It covers 0.399 km2

More buildings for comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_buildings_in_the_world

Bedlam image modified from: “Eighteenth century Bethlem was most notably portrayed in a scene from William Hogarth’s A Rake’s Progress (1735), the story of a rich merchant’s son, Tom Rakewell whose immoral living causes him to end up in Bethlem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlem_Royal_Hospital