Cumbria County Council welcomes the government decision to disclose details of the search during the late 1980s for radioactive waste disposal sites.
That search culminated in 1991 with Nirex choosing a site near Sellafield as its preferred location for the planned repository – Cumbria County Council objected at a public enquiry in 1996 and the government rejected the proposals a year later. At the time the county council described it as a “poor site chosen for the wrong reasons”.
The details being released by the Government under the Freedom of Information Act relate to that initial search process, the search criteria and the results.
At the time Cumbria County Council criticised the search process and choice of preferred sites for being too secretive. We therefore welcome the openness now being shown, but point out that the information relates to events and findings many years ago.
The release of this old information will inevitably raise the profile of nuclear waste disposal and storage issues in Cumbria and elsewhere and it is important to understand that the situation has changed significantly since the 80s and 90s.
There is now a whole new process in place under the auspices of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) to consider the question of storage and disposal methods. It is a much more open and accountable process and it is one with which Cumbria County Council is content.
No direct correlation can be drawn between the potential sites thrown-up by the search in the 80s and 90s and the possible outcomes of the current process which is due to consider possible sites in 2007/8.
It would, however, come as no surprise if sites in Cumbria which were considered back then were in the running again.
The geology has not changed, but the technical understanding of storing nuclear waste and the understanding of local geology has improved and, without prejudging the outcome of the new search process, this means that Sellafield and possibly other sites in the county, could again be considered as possible sites.
But those same changes in technology and knowledge also mean that new sites might emerge as possible locations for the kind of waste repository being sought.
What is clear is that the CoRWM process now in place is far better than its forerunner of the 80s and 90s and it is one in which Cumbrians can have confidence that it will deliver a responsible approach to the handling of nuclear waste.
Tim Stoddard, leader of Cumbria County Council, said: “The county council will be vigilant, and play its full part in the CoRWM process and what follows in the years ahead, including a new look at UK geology and the launch of a new site selection process. No doubt many years of detailed investigations at one or more sites lay ahead. At the time of the public enquiry the county council criticised Nirex 's proposals using the phrase 'A poor site, chosen for the wrong reason'. What we want the new process to deliver is an excellent site, properly chosen, and fully acceptable to its host community.”