From:
Di McDonald (NIS) <nis@g...>
Date:
Mon Oct 9, 2000 6:26am
Subject:
Submarine Waste forum
Submarine
Waste Forum
Bristol
2nd October
Minutes
Present:
Di
McDonald (Nuclear Information Service)
Helen
Wallace (Greenpeace)
Ian
Avert, (CANSAR Plymouth)
Paul
Dorfman (Uni W of Eng)
Paul
Hughes (Welsh Anti-nuclear Alliance)
Roy
Stallard (Wales CND and Welsh Anti-nuclearAlliance)
Stewart
Parfitt, (CANSAR Plymouth)
Tanja
Ziegler (Nuclear Information Service)
Apologies:
Hugh Richards, Jenny Maxwell, Sandy Matthews, Stewart Kemp,
Ian and Stewart gave the following information about Devonport Management Ltd (DML). Stewart had worked for the MoD at Devonport for 20 years and now has cancer. Four submarines are stored afloat at Devonport; three + the four Polaris boats are at Rosyth. Brown & Root are the DML contractors to decommission nuclear submarines and refit Trident with a workforce of 4,000. In the past 10,000 people worked there, but that number is now working in the tourist industry.
In 1986 there was an unacknowledged accident causing 1 million gallons of heavy water to be discharged into the river Tamar. Tritium is regularly discharged into the Tamar from boats returning from patrol. It is no longer discharged at sea to avoid leaving a tell-tale “footprint”. A view was given that in peacetime this was an unnecessary practice and that tritium should not be discharged into the river.
The plan is to store up to 30 sub. hulls and/or reactors on land in “Dutch barn” type shelters to keep them out of sight in a proposed new facility 300 yards from the nearest school. Other schools and a large housing estate are nearby.
John Large considers that there is a 1 in 80 chance of a nuclear accident at such a storage site over 30 years. Chris Busby had recently given a seminar in Plymouth on the effects of LLR. CANSAR has instructed a solicitor to prepare a case to be considered for a judicial review once a decision is made on the current discharge application. They need £1,200.
It was recognised that the proposed amount of waste to be stored in such a densely populated area was unreasonable, but that it is not our responsibility to find other possible sites accessible by sea.
Roy read out his initial response to the MoD proposal and is copying us the MoD reply to it. A hard copy of the MoD presentation document on the proposals and the consultation is available from decomsubs@g...
We agreed
a) thatMoD rad-waste should be kept inside government policy on rad-waste;
b) that it should be included in a future Greenpeace co-ordinated meeting to reconfirm the 1987Agreement on principles of rad-waste storage.
c) that road transport of waste is unacceptable
d) that where dismantlement takes place is critical and related to storage sites
e) that containment is essential
f) that the polluter must pay, (possibly contractor's profit must be ploughed into storage technology? Ed.)
g) that Helen will draft a principles document for sub.waste on the lines of the one agreed for civil waste
h) that we would arrange a meeting in London this year and later in Devonport
i) that we would seek funding for travel costs to meetings
Di McDonald
Nuclear Information Service
30
Westwood Road Southampton
SO17
1DN Britain Tel/Fax: +44 (0)23 80554434 nis@g...