Closing Submissions of the Appellant Contents

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Closing Submissions of the Appellant Contents Appellant Ref: DB/CD 8.5.1 LPA Ref: 4/94/9011 DOE Ref: APP/HO900/A/94/247019 UNITED KINGDOM NIREX LIMITED Rock Characterisation Facility Longlands Farm, Gosforth, Cumbria CLOSING SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT CONTENTS Lionel Read QC Robin Barratt QC Neil Cameron David Wolfe 1 February 1996 1 INTRODUCTION 2 THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES 3 THE APPLICATION 4 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5 LOCAL AMENITY 6 EFFECT ON CHARACTERS AND APPEARANCE OF SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE INCLUDING THE NATIONAL PARK 7 SOCIO ECONOMIC IMPACT 8 HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC 9 CONCLUSION OF PART A 10 NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY 11 BENEFITS 12 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE SITE 13 THE PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT 14 ALTERNATIVE SITES 15 CONDITIONS 16 CONCLUSIONS Back to POE Menu Back to Homepage Appellant Ref: DB/CD 8.5.1 LPA Ref: 4/94/9011 DOE Ref: APP/HO900/A/94/247019 UNITED KINGDOM NIREX LIMITED Rock Characterisation Facility Longlands Farm, Gosforth, Cumbria CLOSING SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This is an Inquiry into an appeal by UK Nirex Ltd against a refusal by Cumbria County Council to grant planning permission for a Rock Characterisation Facility ("RCF") at Longlands Farm, Gosforth. The purpose of the development is to carry forward the investigations which Nirex began in 1989 into the potentiality of the site as a location for a deep repository for the disposal of intermediate level radioactive waste. The planning application under appeal is not for such a repository. Nirex have made no decision to propose a repository at Sellafield. Their decision whether to propose a repository at this location depends on the information they will obtain from the RCF. Whilst, in Nirex's view, the site holds good promise for a repository, they cannot and do not claim that the RCF will produce information which will lead to a decision to propose a repository at Sellafield. They only claim from their present understanding that the site holds sufficient promise to justify further investigations through an RCF. 1.2 That leads me to my first two fundamental points at the outset of these Closing Submissions. 1.3 First, the grant of planning permission for an RCF and the construction of it would not represent any commitment to an eventual repository at Sellafield, half-way or otherwise, whether on the part of Nirex or of the Secretary of State. The financial cost of the RCF at £195m at 1995(1) prices is substantial. But it is little more than one tenth of the total development and construction costs of £1,820m, sunk and projected, for a repository at Sellafield, if one were built. Sunk costs to the 31 March 1995 amount to £391m. So projected RCF costs represent 13.6% of projected expenditure from the 1 April 1995 to first waste emplacement. Nirex hope to obtain enough information in Phase 1 of the RCF to enable them to make a decision, one way or another, whether to propose a repository at Sellafield. The projected cost of Phase 1 is £119m(2). This represents an even lower proportion of total repository costs or projected expenditure. There is nothing, therefore, in the financial cost of an RCF, or in particular of Phase 1 of it, which commits Nirex to Sellafield as a repository site. 1.4 The grant of planning permission could not, and would not, commit the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for a subsequent repository. A repository development would raise quite different issues which would fall for determination on a planning application for such a development. The Secretary of State would no doubt make that position clear if he were to grant permission for the RCF. 1.5 If Nirex were to propose a repository at Sellafield, and to seek to make a safety case to the Environment Agency at an annual post-closure risk to an individual higher than 10-6, it would be for the Environment Agency to decide whether the sunk costs of the RCF or the projected cost of investigating a site elsewhere were relevant to his determination of an authorisation application. The Secretary of State will know, however, that such sunk or projected costs will not cause the Regulator to accept a safety case outside Government policy or, therefore, to authorise an unsafe repository. The RCF will accordingly not commit the Regulator to any decision on a repository authorisation application. 1.6 Second, this is not an Inquiry into a planning application for a repository or into an application for an authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 ("RSA"). Neither is it an inquiry to determine the safety of a repository at Sellafield or its environmental effects. The safety of a repository is not a matter for the Secretary of State. It would be for the Environment Agency if an authorisation application for waste disposal were made. The environmental effects of a repository would be before the Secretary of State if a planning application for that development were made. He has promised to call an inquiry into any such application. 1.7 That leads me to my third fundamental point. 1.8 A very substantial amount of time has been spent at this Inquiry, some one half of it, on cross-examination on behalf of the County Council and other Objectors and on evidence-in-chief they have led dealing with the safety issues of a repository. The Inquiry itself was precipitated by the County Council's refusal of planning permission and their belief that the site was, in safety terms, a poor site for a repository. That belief was in its turn based on a report by their consultants, ERM(3). Whether this Inquiry would ever have taken place if the County Council had appreciated that ERM's opinion of a poor site was based on calculations which their own report said should not be relied upon(4), is an interesting, but another, matter. 1.9 The Secretary of State will, therefore, have to consider very seriously the relevance of that cross- examination and that evidence to this RCF planning application. He will in particular have to determine the extent to which, if at all, Nirex have to show the potential of the Sellafield site to support a safety case to the satisfaction of the Regulator. I deal with this point in some detail later in these Closing Submissions. It is enough for me to say now that in my submission the Secretary of State should go no further than to determine whether the Regulator would be bound to refuse an RSA authorisation if Nirex were to apply for one in the future. If that submission is sound - indeed unless it is substantially wrong - much of the cases for the County Council and other Objectors is misconceived, and most of the evidence they have led is irrelevant. 1.10 I make a fourth fundamental point at the outset of these Submissions. 1.11 Nirex do not come to this Inquiry with evidence to support a safety case. They do not have that evidence. Their assessment of post-closure safety of a repository at Sellafield is preliminary and incomplete. They do not have the information which enables them to take this safety assessment to the point necessary for a decision on whether to propose repository development, and would not be able to obtain it from continued investigations from the surface. They need information which they could only obtain from an underground RCF. 1.12 My fifth point relates to the question of alternative sites. 1.13 This is not an Inquiry into an alternative site for a repository. It cannot be turned into such an inquiry by assuming that there are alternative sites for an RCF wherever there is a potential alternative site for a repository. If and when Nirex decide to propose a repository at Sellafield and to make a planning application for such a development, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to consider any issues of alternative sites for a repository which he then considers relevant to his determination of that planning application. I say more about this subject of alternative sites later in these Closing Submissions. 1.14 Lastly, I would wish clearly to acknowledge the concern that some local people may have, and local authorities on their behalf, about the possibility of a repository at Sellafield. It is an understandable concern: misconceived, but understandable. Their desire to express that concern at this Inquiry, at an early opportunity, is similarly understandable. But most of the time in Part B of this Inquiry has been taken up by the objections of two organisations, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, whose convictions are opposed to Government policy for disposal of ILW waste. 1.15 I turn next to suggest the principal issues which this Appeal raises. Thereafter I divide my Submissions into two parts - A and B - to follow the pattern of the Inquiry. I finish with a short Section on Conditions covering both Parts and a Conclusion. 1.16 For the avoidance of doubt, whenever I refer in these Closing Submissions to the Sellafield site I mean the Longlands Farm potential repository zone. Return to Contents Page Move to Next Section - The Principal Issues REFERENCES (1) PE/NRX/12/S1 Table 4.1 (2) PE/NRX/12/S1 Table 4.2 (3) COR/608 p.104 (4) COR/608 p.20 Appellant Ref: DB/CD 8.5.1 LPA Ref: 4/94/9011 DOE Ref: APP/HO900/A/94/247019 UNITED KINGDOM NIREX LIMITED Rock Characterisation Facility Longlands Farm, Gosforth, Cumbria CLOSING SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT 2.
Recommended publications
  • Inspector's Report
    Inspector’s Report CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL APPEAL by UNITED KINGDOM NIREX LIMITED Inspector: C S McDonald MA DMA LMRTPI Solicitor Asst. Inspector: C Jarvis LLB Solicitor Assessor: C V Knipe BSc CEng CGeol MIMinE MIMM FGS Dates of Inquiry: 5 September 1995 to 1 February 1996 File: APP1H09001M9412470 19 CONTENTS Section Chapter 1 Introduction Abbreviations & Acronyms Technical Glossary Preamble to Report 1 2 Background A. Legal, Political & Regulatory Framework 6 B. Site & Proposals 10 C. Development Plan 15 3 Legal Interpretations A. Nature of Project & Relevance of Repository 25 B. Alternatives & Availability of Information 31 C. Marine Discharges 42 4 Conformity with Development Plan A. Statutory Development Plan 47 B. Retained & Emerging Policies 59 5 Environmental Effects A. Visual Impact 65 B. Soci~Economic Impact 84 C. Traffic Impact 106 D. Noise & Vibration Effects 116 E. Other Effects 123 6 Scientific & Technical Benefits A. Basic Repository Icocational Criteria 130 B. Site Selection Process 147 C. Science & Technical Programmes 170 D. Model Development 212 E. Radiological Protection & Safety Assessment 229 F. Role of RCF & Promise of PRZ 246 7 Conditions A. Mitigation of Environmental Effects 259 B. Ensuring Scientific & Technical Benefits 262 8 Final Conclusions 265 9 Recommendation 278 Appendices 1. Assessor's Report 2. Appearances 3. Documents ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Parties [and see the document codes at the start of the Documents List] Construction Workers = Cumbria Construction Workers Copeland - Copeland Borough Cooncil,
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Industrial and Modern Resource
    Chapter 7: Industrial Period Resource Assessment Chapter 7 The Industrial and Modern Period Resource Assessment by Robina McNeil and Richard Newman With contributions by Mark Brennand, Eleanor Casella, Bernard Champness, CBA North West Industrial Archaeology Panel, David Cranstone, Peter Davey, Chris Dunn, Andrew Fielding, David George, Elizabeth Huckerby, Christine Longworth, Ian Miller, Mike Morris, Michael Nevell, Caron Newman, North West Medieval Pottery Research Group, Sue Stallibrass, Ruth Hurst Vose, Kevin Wilde, Ian Whyte and Sarah Woodcock. Introduction Implicit in any archaeological study of this period is the need to balance the archaeological investigation The cultural developments of the 16th and 17th centu- of material culture with many other disciplines that ries laid the foundations for the radical changes to bear on our understanding of the recent past. The society and the environment that commenced in the wealth of archive and documentary sources available 18th century. The world’s first Industrial Revolution for constructing historical narratives in the Post- produced unprecedented social and environmental Medieval period offer rich opportunities for cross- change and North West England was at the epicentre disciplinary working. At the same time historical ar- of the resultant transformation. Foremost amongst chaeology is increasingly in the foreground of new these changes was a radical development of the com- theoretical approaches (Nevell 2006) that bring to- munications infrastructure, including wholly new gether economic and sociological analysis, anthropol- forms of transportation (Fig 7.1), the growth of exist- ogy and geography. ing manufacturing and trading towns and the crea- tion of new ones. The period saw the emergence of Environment Liverpool as an international port and trading me- tropolis, while Manchester grew as a powerhouse for The 18th to 20th centuries witnessed widespread innovation in production, manufacture and transpor- changes within the landscape of the North West, and tation.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter-7-Industrial-And-Modern
    Chapter 7: Industrial Period Resource Assessment Chapter 7 The Industrial and Modern Period Resource Assessment by Robina McNeil and Richard Newman With contributions by Mark Brennand, Eleanor Casella, Bernard Champness, CBA North West Industrial Archaeology Panel, David Cranstone, Peter Davey, Chris Dunn, Andrew Fielding, David George, Elizabeth Huckerby, Christine Longworth, Ian Miller, Mike Morris, Michael Nevell, Caron Newman, North West Medieval Pottery Research Group, Sue Stallibrass, Ruth Hurst Vose, Kevin Wilde, Ian Whyte and Sarah Woodcock. Introduction Implicit in any archaeological study of this period is the need to balance the archaeological investigation The cultural developments of the 16 th and 17 th centu- of material culture with many other disciplines that ries laid the foundations for the radical changes to bear on our understanding of the recent past. The society and the environment that commenced in the wealth of archive and documentary sources available 18 th century. The world’s first Industrial Revolution for constructing historical narratives in the Post- produced unprecedented social and environmental Medieval period offer rich opportunities for cross- change and North West England was at the epicentre disciplinary working. At the same time historical ar- of the resultant transformation. Foremost amongst chaeology is increasingly in the foreground of new these changes was a radical development of the com- theoretical approaches (Nevell 2006) that bring to- munications infrastructure, including wholly new gether economic and sociological analysis, anthropol- forms of transportation (Fig 7.1), the growth of exist- ogy and geography. ing manufacturing and trading towns and the crea- tion of new ones. The period saw the emergence of Environment Liverpool as an international port and trading me- tropolis, while Manchester grew as a powerhouse for The 18 th to 20 th centuries witnessed widespread innovation in production, manufacture and transpor- changes within the landscape of the North West, and tation.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Bridge
    THIS REPORT IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 4PM MONDAY 28TH MARCH 2011 OPERATION BRIDGE PEER REVIEW INTO THE RESPONSE OF CUMBRIA CONSTABULARY FOLLOWING THE ACTIONS OF DERRICK BIRD ON 2nd JUNE 2010. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW – FINAL REPORT MARCH 2011 ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE SIMON CHESTERMAN WEST MERCIA POLICE ACPO LEAD – ARMED POLICING WORKING GROUP 1 THIS REPORT IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 4PM MONDAY 28TH MARCH 2011 THIS REPORT IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 4PM MONDAY 28TH MARCH 2011 SECTION 1 CONTENTS PAGE Contents Page No’s 1. Title Page and Contents 1 - 4 2. List of Victims 5 3. Executive Summary (Including the list of Recommendations and Observations) 6 - 13 4. Introduction 14 - 17 - Introduction 14 - 16 - The Purpose of the Peer Review 16 - 17 5. The Community Served by Cumbria Constabulary 18 - 19 6. Cumbria Constabulary on the morning of the 2nd June 2010 20 7. The Availability of Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs) 21 in Cumbria at the Time of the Incident Being Reported 8. The Events of 2nd June 2010 22 - 54 - Commentary on the sighting of Derrick BIRD by police officers 31 - 33 - The Command and Directions provided by the FIM at this stage 33 - 34 - Radio Command Channel 34 - 36 - Mutual Aid Mobilised 36 - 37 - Cumbria Constabulary and the Ambulance service 37 – 38 - The changing nature of the attacks by Derrick BIRD 38 - 39 - Professional discussion between the review team and the FIM 39 - 40 - Further shootings by Derrick BIRD 40 - Utilisation of a Negotiator 40 - 41 - Incidents at Thornhill and Wilton 41 - 46 - Seascale 46 - 47 - Drigg Road 48 - Eskdale Valley 49 - 52 - The final phase of the Operation to locate Derrick BIRD 52 - 54 9.
    [Show full text]
  • PLANNING PANEL Date of Meeting: 07/07/2021 Development Control
    To: PLANNING PANEL Development Control Section Date of Meeting: 07/07/2021 Application Number: 4/21/2152/0F1 Application Type: Full : CBC Applicant: Sellafield Ltd Application Address: SELLAFIELD SITE, SEASCALE Proposal ERECTION OF A CNC OPERATIONAL UNIT Parish: Ponsonby, Seascale, Beckermet with Thornhill Recommendation Summary: Approve (commence within 3 years) Crown Copyright. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Copeland Borough Council Licence No. 100019619 (2005). Reason for Determination by Planning Panel The application is brought for consideration by Members of the Planning Panel as the Planning and Place Manager considers it to be of sufficient importance in planning terms to refer to the Planning Panel for determination. Introduction A major application seeking full planning permission for a new building and associated facilities on the Sellafield Site to provide an operational hub for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC). Site and Location Sellafield is an existing licensed nuclear site situated on the west coast of Cumbria. It is highly industrialised covering an area of approximately 6km square and accommodating over 1300 buildings of varying sizes. Vehicular access is via the A595T at Blackbeck, Calderbridge and Seascale. Whilst the site does not benefit from any sensitive designations it is situated circa 3km away from the boundary of the Lake District National Park to the east which is a UNESCO World Heritage site. The application site lies within the Sellafield site licensed nuclear boundary on an elevated platform within the North Group Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Yourcumbria Winter 2005
    Your guide to recruitment Inside: Free A-Z guide to council services cumbria.gov.uk W i n t e r 2 0 0 5 School dinners How are school kitchens rising to Jamie Oliver’s challenge? Visit cumbria.gov.uk/jobs No waste like home for more vacancies Can you help tackle Cumbria’s rubbish mountain? While you were sleeping Who’s looking after our roads during the cold icy nights? Competitions - Events in Cumbria - Pull out winter driving leaflet POINT-A4port.ai 8/7/05 11:33:19 am Want to be your own boss? WHATEVER BUSINESS YOU WANT TO BE PLANT TEA SHOP AND GIFTS PLUMBING HIRE BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS The Right Direction for Business Start-up 12 Business Link and our network of delivery partners are here to Point you in the Thinking about right direction. A new and innovative style of providing starting your own support to anybody in Cumbria wishing 06 19 22 to start a business, Point is designed to business? suit the needs of the individual by offering FREE training and advice from Contents experienced Business Advisers, who can We’re listening Historic Cumbria Following the quality also assist with access to funding of up 04 How YourCumbria is 11 Turning back the clock for 20 parish trail Working with people becoming more accessible Carlisle’s Citadel buildings Find out how Lamplugh to £1000. is shaping it’s own future Lessons to be learned No waste like home who are starting out How rally cars are helping Can you help tackle Cumbria’s The white van man Want to be 06 12 your own to teach road safety rubbish mountain? 22 Not all drivers are the same boss? in business? See me after class While you were sleeping School dinners Visit www.pointmeto.co.uk 07 Meet the headmaster who’s 14 Who’s looking after our roads 24 How are school kitchens keeping Cumbria’s schools during the cold icy nights? rising to Jamie Oliver’s to create a personalised on track challenge? For further information on how to get start-up checklist that can Sudoku challenge involved with Point, ring 0845 600 9006 help make your business a reality.
    [Show full text]
  • Beckermet Village Newsletter March 2018
    Beckermet Village Newsletter March 2018 Published by the Beckermet Village Association Printed on the DeLucy Centre Press Chairman’s Report prove a valuable addition on the village green Welcome to the first issue of the Beckermet for both residents and villagers alike. Village Association newsletter of 2018. Concerns were expressed by a number of those Although we may be into March I would like who attended the meeting about car parking in to take this opportunity to wish you all the the village especially in the narrows on Main very best for the coming year. Our recent Street as on some days the problem is so bad meeting held on the 1st February saw me that any emergency service vehicles would complete my first year as chair of the BVA, a have difficulty getting through thus possibly post I have enjoyed undertaking and meeting putting people’s lives at risk in an emergency. members of our community. Our latest Please park your cars responsibly. meeting held in the Reading Room was There was also concern expressed about the attended by 17 local residents, most of who number of Sellafield workers who are parking attend on a regular basis while occasionally we in the village car park thus preventing it being get some new faces. Such meetings are an used as it was designed for, local residents and opportunity for you to attend and discover visitors to the village. what is happening within the community As a resident of Beckermet you are together with the opportunity to express your automatically a member of the BVA & views.
    [Show full text]
  • Routes to a Prosperous Cumbria
    Developing Sustainable Cumbria 2008 to 2028 Routes to a p rosperous Cumbria A review of Cumbria’s transport investment needs Breathtaking coastlines and landscapes of world renown exist alongside historic urban settlements and degraded industrial townscapes of hidden potential contents p4 1 Introduction p5 2 Summary of key transport issues facing Cumbria Sub Region p6-8 3 The Vision for a Modern and Efficient Infrastructure p9 4 Road and Rail Links between the West Coast and M6 and West Coast Main Line p10 5 Morecambe Bay Bridge and West Coast Highway p11 6 West Coast Main Rail Line p12 7 Trans-Pennine Links p13 8 Transport to serve Rural Communities p14-16 9 Reducing Congestion, Climate Change and Improving Public Health p17 10 Air Transport p18 11 Seaports p19-20 12 Capital Funding for the Cumbria Highway and Transport Network p21-22 13 Barrow and Furness p23-26 14 Carlisle and North Cumbria p27-28 15 Lake District National Park p29-31 16 South and East Cumbria p32-35 17 West Cumbria p36 18 Conclusion 3 1 2 Introduction 1.1 This document ‘Routes to a Prosperous 1.4 Proposed transport infrastructure Cumbria’ sets out a vision of an improved transport improvements are developed within the context of infrastructure focussed on economic growth and the Planning System, key objectives of which are quality of place. Its purpose is to demonstrate the to give support to and ensure thriving sustainable level of improvement needed to bring the transport communities, manage resources in a sustainable infrastructure of Cumbria up to a modern standard, way and minimise any environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • West Cumbria Spatial Masterplan
    WEST CUMBRIA SPATIAL MASTERPLAN Transport Working Paper 3: Transport September 2006 Prepared for: Prepared by: West Cumbria Strategic Forum Steer Davies Gleave West Riding House 67 Albion Street Leeds LS1 5AA +44 (0)113 242 9955 www.steerdaviesgleave.com Transport Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Consultation 1 Regional Funding Allocations 2 Report Structure 3 2. ROAD ACCESS 5 Strategic Highway Considerations 5 Highway linkages within West Cumbria 6 Potential highway time savings 8 Drive time isochrones 10 Buses 16 Summary 16 3. RAIL ACCESS 18 Connections to the wider area 18 The Coast Line 18 Summary 18 4. ACCESS BY AIR 18 Current situation 18 Proposals 18 Summary 18 5. ACCESS BY SEA 18 Ports 18 Marinas 18 Summary 18 6. ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT 18 To facilitate the Masterplan 18 7. SUMMARY 18 Existing Transport Proposals 18 Future Proposals 18 FIGURES Figure 2.1 Drive time isochrone - Workington 13 G:\SHARED\CF\London.PFI\PROJECTS (Current)\NON PFI_PUBLIC\West Cumbria\_MASTERPLAN\3 Working Papers\WP3 Transport\Final\WP3 Transport (Sept06) Final.doc Contents Transport Figure 2.2 Drive time isochrone - Sellafield 15 TABLES Table 2.1 A66 Traffic Flows (August 2005) Table 3.1 London by rail Table 3.2 Average journey times - West Cumbria Coast Line Table 3.3 Average daily frequency - West Cumbria Coast Line Table 7.1 Transport Proposals for West Cumbria 2 Transport 1. INTRODUCTION Background 1.1 Steer Davies Gleave has been commissioned to undertake a review of transport in West Cumbria and to ultimately feed into the West Cumbria Spatial Masterplan. 1.2 This working note provides the findings of our baseline review of transport conditions affecting West Cumbria and provides our list of recommendations for those schemes that we believe are most likely to achieve real benefits, and that are likely to be affordable and deliverable.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Geological Unsuitability Screening of West Cumbria
    Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Initial Geological Unsuitability Screening of West Cumbria Commissioned Report CR/10/072 BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE, ENGLAND COMMISSIONED REPORT CR/10/072 Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Initial Geological Unsuitability Screening of West The National Grid and other Cumbria Ordnance Survey data are used with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Licence No: 100017897/ 2010. J H Powell, C N Waters, D Millward and N S Robins Keywords Report; Sub-surface screening; West Cumbria MRWS Partnership; Managing Contributors: L Hughes and H V Cullen Radioactive Waste Safely; DECC; geology; hydrogeology; geological disposal Front cover: Digital terrain model area showing the topography of the Allerdale- Copeland area. NEXTMap Britain elevation data from Intermap Technologies. Bibliographical reference POWELL, J.H., WATERS, C.N., MILLWARD, D, and ROBINS, N.S. 2010. Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Initial Geological Unsuitability Screening of West Cumbria British Geological Survey Research Report, CR/10/072. 73pp. Copyright in materials derived from the British Geological Survey’s work is owned by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and/or the authority that commissioned the work. You may not copy or adapt this publication without first obtaining permission. Contact the BGS Intellectual Property Rights Section, British Geological Survey, Keyworth, e-mail [email protected]. You may quote extracts of a reasonable length without prior permission, provided
    [Show full text]
  • Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
    The Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Centre for Formerly the Institutes of Hydrology, Ecology & Hydrology Terrestrial Ecology. Freshwater Ecology. NATURAL ENVIRONMEN1 RES! ARCH COUNCIL and Virology and Environmental Microbiology The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology has 600 staff, and well-equipped laboratories and field facilities at nine sites throughout the United Kingdom.The Centre's administrative headquarters is at Monks Wood in Cambridgeshire. This report is an official document prepared under contract between the customer and the Natural Environment Research Council. It should not be quoted without the permission of both the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the customer. GEH Sites CEH Directorate CEH Wallingford CEH Windermere Monks Wood,Abbots Ryton. Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford. The Ferry House. Far Sawrey, Huntingdon, Wallingford, Ambleside, Cambridgeshire PE28 215 Oxfordshire OXIO 8BB Cumbria LA22 OLP Telephone +44 (0) 1487 772400 Telephone +44 (0) 1491 838800 Telephone •44 (0) 15394 42468 Main Fax +44 (0) 1487 773590 Main Fax +44 (0) 1491 692124 Main Fax +44 (0) 15394 46914 CEH Oxford CEH Dorset CEH Monks Wood Mansfield Road. Winfrith Technology Centre. Abbots Ripton. Oxford. Winfrith Newburgh. Dorchester. Huntingdon, Oxfordshire OX I 3SR Dorset D12 8ZD Carnbridgeshire PE28 215 Telephone +44 (0) 1865 281630 Telephone +14 (0) 1305 213500 Telephone +44 (0) 1487 772400 Main Fax •44 (0) 1865 281696 Main Fax +44 (0) 1305 213600 Main Fax+44 (0) 1487 773467 CEH Merlewood CEH Edinburgh CEH Banchory Windermere Road. Bush Estate, Hill of Brathens. Grange-over-Sands. Penicuik. Banchory, Cumbria LA I 1 6JU Midlothian EH26 OQB Aberdeenshire AB3I 4 BY Telephone +44 (0) 15395 32264 Telephone +14 (0) 131 4454343 Telephone +44 (0) 1330 826300 Main Fax +44 (0) 15395 34705 Main Fax +44 (0) 131 4453943 Main Fax +44 (0) 1330 823303 CEH Bangor University of Wales, Bangor.
    [Show full text]
  • National Geological Screening: Northern England Region
    National Geological Screening: Northern England region Minerals and Waste Programme Commissioned Report CR/17/103 BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS AND WASTE PROGRAMME COMMISSIONED REPORT CR/17/103 National Geological Screening: Northern England region C Waters1, D Schofield1, D E Evans2, D Millward2, R Haslam2, B Ó’Dochartaigh3, J P Bloomfield3, J R Lee4, B Baptie4, R P Shaw5, T Bide5 and F M McEvoy 1Rock type, 2Rock structure, 3Groundwater, 4Natural processes, 5Resources Contributors/editors L P Field, R Terrington, P Williamson, I Mosca, N J P Smith, C Gent, M Barron, A Howard, G Baker, R M Lark, A Lacinska, S Thorpe, H Holbrook, I Longhurst, L Hannaford and J R Ford The National Grid and other Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright and database rights 7. Ordnance Survey Licence No. 100021290 EUL. Keywords National geological screening, GDF, Northern England, rock type, structure, groundwater, natural processes, resources Bibliographical reference WATERS, C, SCHOFIELD, D, EVANS, D, MILLWARD, D, HASLAM, R, O’DOCHARTAIGH, B, BLOOMFIELD, J P, LEE, J, BAPTIE, B, SHAW, R P, BIDE, T, AND MCEVOY, F M. 2018. Northern England region. British Geological Survey Commissioned Report, CR/17/103. 96pp. BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY The full range of our publications is available from BGS shops at Nottingham, Edinburgh, London and Cardiff (Welsh British Geological Survey offices publications only) see contact details below or shop online at www.geologyshop.com Environmental Science Centre, Keyworth, Nottingham The London Information Office also maintains a reference NG12 5GG collection of BGS publications, including maps, for Tel 0115 936 3100 consultation. We publish an annual catalogue of our maps and other BGS Central Enquiries Desk publications; this catalogue is available online or from any of Tel 0115 936 3143 the BGS shops.
    [Show full text]