From: bane@stokes.ma.man.ac.uk (MICHAEL)
Subject: LETTERS TO WRITE (Re: Sellafield nuke reprocessing plant)
Followup-To: alt.save.the.earth
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.
Distribution: uk
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:50:49 GMT

Hi!
Just to encourage you to write to HMIP about the BNFL application to
discharge more radioactive waste. This extra waste application is because
BNFL want to bring THORP (aka Sellafield 2) online. 

Here is an *example* letter -- please feel free to edit this. If you
require more information then just mail me. Thanks,
Michael



--- START OF EXAMPLE LETTER:
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution,
Mitre House,
Church Street,
Lancaster LA1 1BG.

Dear Sir/Madam,
                 Re: BNFL's THORP Application. 
I am writing in objection to the proposed additional discharges of
radiation that are associated with British Nuclear Fuels' application
regarding their thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP). Please could
you acknowledge the receipt of this complaint and inform me of your final
decision, and of any other measures I may take to oppose this application?

I understand that current levels along the west coast of Cumbria are
already dangerously high and approaching the legal limit. Furthermore,
I understand that the current levels are in danger of breeching the
NRPB's new tolerable maximum limits and that there is much uncertainty
in the amount of  extra radioactive discharges that will be
associated with the THORP plant.

There also seems to be a large amount of uncertainty over several other
issues including:
* Monitoring of critical groups:
For example, people have eaten less
fish and crustaceans because of recent scares concerning radioactive
releases from the present works at Sellafield. Thus the ``critical
group'' is receiving less radiation than is presumed. It is a
frightening but realistic scenario whereby BNFL receive permission
(using these lower consumption rates) to increase radioactive
discharges  and then the local population begins to consume more
local fish and shellfish.
* The commercial aspects:
James Hann, the Chair of Scottish Nuclear Ltd, has publically stated
that reprocessing is both 
costly and unnecessary (Power in Europe, 86/2). It therefore seems
that the nuclear industry itself is not supportive of reprocessing
and, by logical deduction, is against the construction of a
reprocessing plant. There seems no commercial reason why BNFL
should build THORP.
* Reprocessing increases amount of radioactive materials:
The argument that reprocessing of nuclear waste is a ``disposal'' method
is flawed. The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (a
Government organization) stated in 1990 that ``there are no compelling
waste management reasons to reprocess oxide fuel''. The Chair of
BNFL's Reprocessing and Reactor Group said (in 1989) that
``reprocessing is not necessary''. It is obvious, also, that there
will be a massive increase in the amount of low-level radioactive
waste produced (the protective suits of the workers, etc) as a result
of commissioning THORP.
* Transportation of nuclear waste:
It is likely that the THORP plant
will take nuclear waste from Germany and other countries. Therefore, yet
again, England will become the trash collector for Europe. I am
especially concerned that the transportation of nuclear waste will lead
to accidental release of radiation to the environment. I am particularly
concerned that much of this waste will be travelling via Manchester.

It therefore seems that the proposed THORP plant will bring no benefits
but only increased levels, possibly illegal legals, of radiation. I
therefore urge you to reject BNFL's application.

Yours faithfully,

MICHAEL BANE

Xref: sparky alt.save.the.earth:1271 sci.environment:12002