Bid to ship nuclear waste to Hinkley Point A

stock image

stock image

First published in News by

SEVENTY lorry loads of nuclear waste from Oldbury power station in South Gloucestershire could be moved to Hinkley Point A to be processed and stored under plans put forward by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).

They say that the move makes financial sense and that it is safe.

However West Somerset councillors are being urged to object to the plans to move 144 tonnes of the nuclear waste between 2020 to 2022. The district council has argued that extra nuclear waste should not be brought into the area.

Members are due to discuss the plan tomorrow (Wednesday) and the officers’ report to members says only waste in-situ within Hinkley A should be stored on site.

The report adds: “... aligning with a condition placed on previous planning decision by SCC which states that: 'There shall be no radioactive waste imported from outside Hinkley A site; and only the waste (currently classed as Intermediate Level radioactive waste) that is in situ within the Hinkley A site shall be stored on the site.”

A spokesman for Stop Hinkley, which campaigns against nuclear power in the South-West, said: “We think all of the nuclear waste should stay close to the site and surface.

“We don't believe that the industry should be moving nuclear waste around as it increases the risk of dosage to the public.

“When dealt with on site there is a risk to workers but it is all relative as they are being paid and know the dangers.”

Tim Taylor, leader of West Somerset Council, said: “Any nuclear waste has its risks, and it is also reputational risks as well – risk to tourism and prospects and so on, so we object to any nuclear waste coming from outside.”

The NDA said using fewer locations would help reduce overall costs, environmental impacts and timescales of decommissioning.

Ben Hamilton, head of stakeholder relations at the NDA, said: “Clearly, safety and security are the biggest priority that we have in terms of all of our planning work.

“We have made it very, very clear that we wouldn’t carry out any of these proposals if we thought there was going to be a significant increase in risk.”

The NDA made the proposals in a paper published last November regarding their preferred options for dealing with nuclear waste.

The paper is under consultation and comments can be made until January 31.

There are plans to build a new store at Hinkley A for the storage of intermediate level waste and a new dissolution plant to process fuel element debris.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:38am Wed 22 Jan 14

Lord Gothover says...

So they want to dump their krapp on your doorstep?. Of course it"s safe. Very doubtful of their statement that it would save money.
So they want to dump their krapp on your doorstep?. Of course it"s safe. Very doubtful of their statement that it would save money. Lord Gothover
  • Score: 4

11:38am Wed 22 Jan 14

grisleyreg says...

One of the major problems with existing and proposed Nuclear Power stations is waste and they have no answers.
So we will haul it around and put more lorries through the town, Good plan.
One of the major problems with existing and proposed Nuclear Power stations is waste and they have no answers. So we will haul it around and put more lorries through the town, Good plan. grisleyreg
  • Score: -1

2:09am Thu 23 Jan 14

Three Pots Derek says...

Don't we generate enough nuclear waste without bringing someone else's here as well. That would mean even more lorries on our already conjested roads, and a lot more chance of something going wrong. THINK AGAIN.
Don't we generate enough nuclear waste without bringing someone else's here as well. That would mean even more lorries on our already conjested roads, and a lot more chance of something going wrong. THINK AGAIN. Three Pots Derek
  • Score: 0

9:53am Thu 23 Jan 14

awayswing says...

The nuclear industry has a habit of saying things are safe and then there is an accident and suddenly things are not so safe.I do not know where they can put this waste but near inhabited areas seems a strange idea.
The nuclear industry has a habit of saying things are safe and then there is an accident and suddenly things are not so safe.I do not know where they can put this waste but near inhabited areas seems a strange idea. awayswing
  • Score: 1

12:47pm Thu 23 Jan 14

lordgodalmighty says...

Does anyone seriously believe they have any say in whether tons of nuclear waste get shipped to hinkley A ? Nobody wanted hinkley c but they got it.
Does anyone seriously believe they have any say in whether tons of nuclear waste get shipped to hinkley A ? Nobody wanted hinkley c but they got it. lordgodalmighty
  • Score: 2

12:48pm Thu 23 Jan 14

lordgodalmighty says...

grisleyreg wrote:
One of the major problems with existing and proposed Nuclear Power stations is waste and they have no answers.
So we will haul it around and put more lorries through the town, Good plan.
Everything will be fine - they have outsourced nuclear waste management and power station decomissioning to the japanese yakuza. Problem solved.
[quote][p][bold]grisleyreg[/bold] wrote: One of the major problems with existing and proposed Nuclear Power stations is waste and they have no answers. So we will haul it around and put more lorries through the town, Good plan.[/p][/quote]Everything will be fine - they have outsourced nuclear waste management and power station decomissioning to the japanese yakuza. Problem solved. lordgodalmighty
  • Score: 3

12:51pm Thu 23 Jan 14

lordgodalmighty says...

Why dont we just dump our nuclear waste in the pacific ocean ? It's not like it will make any noticeable difference since fukushima daachii has been spewing highly toxic waste directly into it and will do so for the rest of eternity.
Why dont we just dump our nuclear waste in the pacific ocean ? It's not like it will make any noticeable difference since fukushima daachii has been spewing highly toxic waste directly into it and will do so for the rest of eternity. lordgodalmighty
  • Score: 2

2:15pm Thu 23 Jan 14

PCAH says...

Hinkley has no contract to carry out on site reprocessing of ILW either from Hinkley A or imported waste from Oldbury. If safety is prioritised in the new national NDA contract, there will be no opening up of the Hinkley A ILW vaults, no on site reprocessing and no intermediate waste storage in on site buildings. Following the Bradwell contract to Vinci to encase their Magnox reactors and seal them for the 100 year radioactive decay period, this is now the policy which will apply to all the UK Magnox sites. Due to discharges from vents installed in the Hinkley A Magnox reactors in 2006 and work on spent fuel ponds and sludge silos perinatal mortality in Somerset has doubled and skin cancer is 46% higher than in adjacent counties. We are waiting for the ONR to order the re-sealing of the Magnox reactors, and the shut down of the two Hinkley B AGR reactors before they become the next Fukushima and the risks increase with every day they remain operational due to age related structural failures.
Hinkley has no contract to carry out on site reprocessing of ILW either from Hinkley A or imported waste from Oldbury. If safety is prioritised in the new national NDA contract, there will be no opening up of the Hinkley A ILW vaults, no on site reprocessing and no intermediate waste storage in on site buildings. Following the Bradwell contract to Vinci to encase their Magnox reactors and seal them for the 100 year radioactive decay period, this is now the policy which will apply to all the UK Magnox sites. Due to discharges from vents installed in the Hinkley A Magnox reactors in 2006 and work on spent fuel ponds and sludge silos perinatal mortality in Somerset has doubled and skin cancer is 46% higher than in adjacent counties. We are waiting for the ONR to order the re-sealing of the Magnox reactors, and the shut down of the two Hinkley B AGR reactors before they become the next Fukushima and the risks increase with every day they remain operational due to age related structural failures. PCAH
  • Score: 1

10:18am Tue 28 Jan 14

Blue Owl says...

The movement of Waste Radio Active Spent Fuel Roads, must not be imported fro outside of our District, there already are plans to build Storage Ponds @ Hinkley from the reports I have seen in the past, this being de-commissioned fuel roads, stored for 100 years and upwards until a National or International Storage Repository can be built Somewhere, still on the Drawing Board to my latest knowledge.........
In the mean while we in SDC. And S West Somerset, should recipeive around £25Million as a One off Payment as compensation, and a further £3 Million per Annum for the period of having the Spent Fuel in Somerset.
Sellerfield district recieved £10 Million and £1.5 per Annum in the past, for Community Compensation....
David L Preece
Blue-Owl.
The movement of Waste Radio Active Spent Fuel Roads, must not be imported fro outside of our District, there already are plans to build Storage Ponds @ Hinkley from the reports I have seen in the past, this being de-commissioned fuel roads, stored for 100 years and upwards until a National or International Storage Repository can be built Somewhere, still on the Drawing Board to my latest knowledge......... In the mean while we in SDC. And S West Somerset, should recipeive around £25Million as a One off Payment as compensation, and a further £3 Million per Annum for the period of having the Spent Fuel in Somerset. Sellerfield district recieved £10 Million and £1.5 per Annum in the past, for Community Compensation.... David L Preece Blue-Owl. Blue Owl
  • Score: -1

11:43am Tue 28 Jan 14

twinkles says...

lordgodalmighty wrote:
Does anyone seriously believe they have any say in whether tons of nuclear waste get shipped to hinkley A ? Nobody wanted hinkley c but they got it.
I want it. Cleanest and most efficient form of energy production.
[quote][p][bold]lordgodalmighty[/bold] wrote: Does anyone seriously believe they have any say in whether tons of nuclear waste get shipped to hinkley A ? Nobody wanted hinkley c but they got it.[/p][/quote]I want it. Cleanest and most efficient form of energy production. twinkles
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree