TL: AUTHORISING THORP MEANS
SO: Antony Froggatt, Greenpeace International (GP)
DT: December 15, 1993 
Keywords: environment nuclear power uk europe health /

*  2000 deaths from exposure to 10 years radioactive discharges
for Sellafield.  32% of these from Thorp.  There will also be
non-fatal cancers and genetic damage.
 
*  Discharges from Sellafield will result in total radiation
doses four times as great as in 1975,  the time of the greatest
discharges from Sellafield (Windscale).  This is because the type
of radioactivity is much longer lived and creates exposure over a
longer period.
 
*  A 189 fold increase in nuclear waste volumes.   The nuclear
waste problem is also made far worse because of the physical and
chemical variety of the waste increases.  Three quarters of the
waste is foreign, and between 89% and 99% of this will remain in
the UK for dumping.  Dry storage expands waste volumes by only a
factor of three.
 
*  Over 60 tonnes of weapons-usable plutonium will be distributed
to eight counties.  According to Pentagon consultants,  Rand
Corporation, just 7 Kg is sufficient to make a primitive nuclear
bomb.  The US Department of Defense does not accept that the
plutonium safeguards are adequate.  Plutonium sent to Japan will
provoke an unpredictable response from its neighbours including
China and N. Korea.
 
*  Stockpiles of unwanted plutonium will be held at great
expense.  The UK fast breeder programme will be abandoned in
1994.  Japan's FBR programme is suffering delays and technical
problems.  It costs $1-3 billion per tonne per year to store
plutonium
 
*  Recovered uranium from Thorp will be stored or classified as
waste.  It will be contaminated with highly radioactive elements
and isotopes of uranium that slow down chain reactions.  These
difficulties mean that most, if not all, uranium from Thorp will
not be used.  Thorp will not provide a source of energy.
 
*  The long term costs for decommissioning and waste management
will fall on the taxpayer or consumer.  Up to 1.21 billion pounds
of possible costs escalations have already been identified.  The
UK electricity  consumer will pay up to 1.7 billion pounds more
than necessary for reprocessing at Thorp - a huge subsidy to
BNFL.  By not reprocessing, Scottish Nuclear will cut its spent
fuel management costs by 45 million pound,  roughly 50%.
 
*  The UK and European legal requirement for a Public Inquiry to
examine the justification for Thorp has been ignored.  The
Government has left the justification of Thorp's radioactive
waste and discharge to BNFL.
 
*  Even the UK contracts (Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear)
are uncertain,  both utilities have concrete plans for storage.  
*  Objections and calls for a Public Inquiry from the governments
of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, The Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Isle of Man will have been
ignored.  104 local authorities including four statutory
consultees have objected or called for a Public Inquiry.  64,000
individual objections have been made to HMIP (Her Majesty's
Inspectorate of Pollution) and 25,000 to the Department of
Environment).
 
*  The alternative to reprocessing, to 'dry store'  spent nuclear
fuel, has not been pursued.  Even though Thorp is already built,
it would be cheaper and better to start from scratch, and
construct storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel.  This option
has not been put to Thorp customers.  Switching to dry storage
could reduce overall costs by 1 billion pounds.

ENDS