top of page

Two Weeks to Stop the Dump and Tell UK Government To Get the Hell Off the Nukiller Ride

Beyond Time To Get Off the Nukiller Ride

(photo credit: Wendelin Jacober)

Please write with your objection to the Government plan to dump very HOT High Level Radioactive wastes under the seabed - Intermediate Level wastes under the Coastline and generally looking for any which way to get shot of nuclear wastes in order to clear the decks for more.

The following is an extract from a letter of objection by a West Cumbrian - followed by more detailed objections from the Nuclear Free Local Authorities. Please use these inspirations to write your own letter of objection - there is no need to try and answer their (loaded) questions - the main thing to say is that the policy is WRONG and that nuclear waste should not be abandoned, dispersed or, as is proposed in Preston (for European wastes..), incinerated.

Write to by May 24th - remember to include your name and address.

Subject: Consultation response Managing radioactive substances and nuclear decommissioning To: <> I am writing to oppose the policy on near surface disposal of intermediate level nuclear waste.

I live in West Cumbria where as a resident I live within the south Copeland search area for a gdf. I also live within one mile of the llwr, low level waste repository site, and close to sellafield. I object to this area being considered for further nuclear waste disposal development. As I believe this u.k policy has been specifically written with llwr site at drigg in mind, as boreholes carried out last year as per the " on the level" newsletter stated they were done to look at the feasibility of intermediate level nuclear waste near surface disposal. I have a freedom of information act request in to see if boreholes were carried out on any other NDA owned land.

When the gdf search areas were announced it was stated that it was to hold intermediate and high level waste in one location. So only one development, one blight on the countryside, one major development. This proposal means more development which I object to.

The consultation states in part two that it is expected that near surface disposal for intermediate level nuclear waste will be on land currently owned by the nuclear decommissioning authority. They own the llwr site. But they have now bought the mineral rights around the llwr site right up to my back fence. Plus long term lease and freehold ownership of land to the west of the llwr site. This means that that land may, according to the proposed policy, be developed to near surface disposal of intermediate level nuclear waste. Enlarging the llwr site. This would cause unacceptable noise and disruption to our rural village and hamlet of drigg and stubble green, close to the national park boundary of the world heritage site of the lake District national park and drigg dunes SSSI. I object to this as it could prolong and change the use of pre existing nuclear sites in rural areas to a negative industrialisation effect for up to another 100 years. Which is unacceptable.this also brings with it anxiety and worry to me and my friends and family in our community.

I believe that the nuclear waste should not be brought all to west Cumbria but storage facilities should be placed close to where it was produced, and that that has been brought to west Cumbria returned to its source.

It was always the proposal that the llwr site would end operations and start to be turned back to a natural state. The proposal goes against this and is unacceptable. As the policy opens the llwr site up for future development past its intended use up to another 100 years. I object. This policy would bring a higher level of nuclear waste close to people's homes. I strongly object to that.

Llwr site last year did 16 boreholes with near surface disposal of intermediate level waste in mind before this consultation on policy, without any public consultation or planning application..this is unacceptable. I strongly object because clearly the llwr site has already being set up for this policy. I believe and strongly object to the llwr being ear marked for near surface disposal of intermediate level waste and so object to this policy. This policy is only ticking a box to enable llwr at drigg to host higher level waste in my opinion.

This consultation proposal now means that our rural village and hamlet is now under consideration for a gdf and a higher level nuclear waste near surface disposal facility within one small parish. Our roads and infrastructure are not suitable and we chose to live in a rural area, we do not want infrastructure improvements as this would impact the visual amenity of the area, increase noise and disruption within a mile of the lake district national park and world heritage site, and part of the English coastal trail long distance footpath. It would be detrimental to tourism in the area. There are two campsites within the parish and numerous holiday cottages, a couple of pubs and a craft shop and coffee shop. All rely on peace and quiet and the visual amenity of the area. This policy could adversely effect this in this particular area, deterimental to small businesses.

The llwr site is already disruptive to the area, it is noisy. Speeding drivers through the village. Excessive amount of HGV traffic through the villages narrow roads, noise from rail traffic at the site behind our house and machinery noise. That's before they start capping what is already there! Near surface disposal for intermediate level nuclear waste would only make this worse hence for this reason I object to the policy.


This process does not offer a home owners compensation payout scheme if the near surface disposal effects property sales in the area. It must offer this as per the gdf process. The town and country planning act would only give us only 21 days to respond to material planning conditions on the development. Not the development itself. It would give us no input into any 106 agreement, (the planning document that covers compensation) So I object to the policy.

(name and address supplied)

Nuclear Free Local Authorities Objections to Government Nuclear Waste Policy Plan

Prevent, protect, consult – the NFLA’s three priorities for UK radioactive waste policy

The UK Government has its priorities ‘all wrong’ in its proposals for the future management of radioactive substances and nuclear decommissioning, so says the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities in its response to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s consultation on its proposals for the future management of radioactive substances and nuclear decommissioning. Instead of an emphasis on cutting costs and reducing the burdens on the nuclear industry as DESNZ would like, the NFLA believes that government and the nuclear industry should do everything necessary for the protection of human health and safeguarding our natural environment – whatever the cost. To the NFLA, government policy and industry practice should focus upon three main tenets:

  • Preventing the creation of more radioactive waste, by not building any more nuclear power plants, by closing and decommissioning existing ones as quickly as possible, and by not revisiting mad-cap schemes that have failed before, like repurposing plutonium as reactor fuel, which creates yet more waste and risks nuclear weapons proliferation;

  • Protecting the public and the natural environment, by ‘concentrating and containing’ existing waste on or near the surface on the sites where it was created or is currently stored and having a policy of active ongoing management, with the facility of retrieval if waste is stored below ground. This is opposed to government policy which for high-level waste is focused upon transportation by rail to a Geological Disposal Facility into which the waste would be deposited and forgotten about and for lower-level wastes is one of ‘dilute and disperse’, which involves incineration releasing radiation into the atmosphere or dumping into municipal waste tips or

discharging it into rivers or oceans.

  • Consulting the public, over the storage and treatment of radioactive waste, and its transportation if this should continue, and also educating the public on the radiological risks attached to these activities; all too often consultation is tokenistic, not inclusive and not open, with the nuclear industry still conducting much of its business behind closed doors.

The author of our response was Pete Roche, the NFLA Policy Advisor (Scotland). Pete has over fifty years of environmental and anti-nuclear campaigning

experience, having first been involved in protests against the construction of the Torness Nuclear Power Station in the 1970s. The NFLA’s full response can be read at the end of this media release; it amounts to a resounding ‘No’. The DESNZ consultation is still open for public comments until 24 May 2023. The consultation papers can be found at The response by the NFLAs to the DESNZ consultation

75 views0 comments


bottom of page