FYI Dear Members of the Cabinet I read your response to the DECC Consultation on a Revised Siting Process for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) with interest yesterday. On behalf of the 700+ members of 3 Weeks to Save the Lakes I would like to raise a number of concerns about its content. Please take these concerns into consideration at your planned discussion on 21st November. While I am pleased that you have taken the time to consider the implications of the MRWS2 process on our county I do not feel it goes far enough in ensuring a safe future for our county or in ensuring the GDF will be sited in the safest location. As DECC keep telling us, this is a national process. Cumbria withdrew from MRWS in January and as a result they will be launching a new national process in 2014. Many of us in Cumbria are sceptical of that, and as a result much talk of GDF is framed in Cumbrian terms. Unsurprising as this is with over 30 years of attempts to build a GDF in our county, it is unhelpful if we are to ensure the safest location is sought rather than the most convenient. I believe that the cabinet have fallen foul of this easily made mistake and have responded to the questions as if a Cumbrian GDF had been given the go-ahead. In parts, Cumbria County Councils response to the consultation reads like a blueprint for a Cumbrian GDF- answers to some questions comment specifically on west Cumbria and others talk of engaging the rest of Cumbria in the discussion. I would prefer to see reference to the wider nation. It has been shown time and again that there are safer, preferable locations around the country and that Cumbrian geology is not suitable for this purpose. Please reframe your answers to give your response a national context. References to Cumbria should only be made when citing previous examples of tried and tested processes, and should be clear in their historical context. All other county and location responses to DECCs proposals should be framed in a way that relate to any other representative authority which may wish to volunteer for consideration as a host community. Further to these concerns, I am disappointed that Cumbria County Council have not grasped the opportunity to raise concerns about DECCs steering group proposals. Most of us in Cumbria are aware that there is a distinct possibility that Copeland will volunteer as host in the new process. It would be inappropriate for the leader of such an authority to be head of any steering group. Their would be conflicts of interest and conflicts within the hierarchy of local government that would make the situation unmanageable. In addition, a small authority (such as Copeland) does not have the strategic authority to be able to manage a project of such magnitude. Are we to expect a County council being dictated to on planning, infrastructure and waste management by one of its minor districts? I would like to see Cumbria Cabinet make more of this in the response- framed in a national context. I note that you have raised concerns about Right of Withdrawal and wish to enshrine that in any future process. However, you have also said that you are in agreement with DECCs proposal to use NSIP to govern the siting of a GDF. There is no Right of Withdrawal under NSIP. This is of major concern to me and our members. I would appreciate it if you could reconsider this point. While I am aware that a GDF is a national issue, a strategic necessity and of the utmost importance it is vital that we do not create a system which enables Central Government to force a GDF on an unsuitable community. The latter point brings me to my final concern- Geology. Geology should be the most significant factor for consideration when deciding on a location for a GDF. No matter where such a facility is located or how it is engineered it is expected that eventually it will leak- canisters will corrode, fractures will form, pathways will be created that bring waste to the surface. The timescale over which this will happen is debatable, and is largely dependent on the composition of the host rock; the more suitable the rock, the longer waste can be stored safely. Any engineered solution will corrode alongside its contents and the last defense against widespread radioactive pollution of the environment is the host rock. It is therefore imperative that Cabinets response highlights the need for geology to be the most significant factor in any plans for GDF going forward. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I appreciate the difficulties of drafting a single response when your members have widely differing views on the matter. However, the safety of Cumbria should take precedence over any differences and so a national, geological focus would be preferable to all. Kind Regards Fiona Goldie 3 Weeks to Save The Lakes
Posted on: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:15:03 +0000