Who Made Decision to Escalate Activity of Nuclear Wastes for Dumping from Low/Intermediate to High?


Please send your own questions to the panel live@newscientist.com

Uk's Nuclear Waste and the Geological Solution - you can see "get your free ticket' to the 'debate' ....tonight

https://milled.com/newscientist/the-uks-nuclear-waste-and-the-geological-solution-your-free-invitation-to-join--HbAbCFDJf17XFd3v


A question from Anita for the panel on tonights New Scientist 'debate' (all the panel are embedded in the "Delivery" of a geological dump for heat generating nuclear wastes. The question is : Dear New Scientist

This is a question for the BNFL Research chair Katherine Morris

I was one of the people at the NIREX inquiry in 1996/7 which refused rock characterisation boreholes for the then called "Sellafield Repository" on the grounds that the area's geology although the most studied in the UK will always be too complex to predict water flow. . The rejected 1997 NIREX plan was to emplace low and intermediate level wastes deep underground. In 2008 Cumbria County Council also rejected the revised plan by Managing Radioactive Wastes Safely, this time for high level nuclear wastes.

It has never been explained what the justification is for increasing the activity of the wastes for deep disposal from low/intermediate to high.

Who made the decision to increase the activity of the wastes for deep disposal and what is the justification ?

kind regards

Anita Stirzaker

Cumbria

Please send your own questions to the panel live@newscientist.com

Uk's Nuclear Waste and the Geological Solution - you can see the 'debate' here....tonight

https://milled.com/newscientist/the-uks-nuclear-waste-and-the-geological-solution-your-free-invitation-to-join--HbAbCFDJf17XFd3v

25 views0 comments