15 October 2013 |

In a new statement, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and MKG demand completions in the license application to build a repository for spent nuclear fuel

On October 15, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation [SSNC] and the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review [MKG] submitted their second statement to the Land- and Environmental Court, giving their view of the nuclear waste company’s [SKB] answer to the demands of completions. These demands have been posed by the body of referral in the review of the license application to build a final repository for spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the Environmental Code. The two organizations still lack answers to several critical issues, making them question whether the application should have ever been submitted. 

On October 15, SSNC and MKG submitted their second statement to the Land- and Environmental Court. In this statement, the organizations give their view of answer to the demands of completions made by the power industry’s nuclear waste company SKB. SSNC and MKG still lack answers on several critical issues, such as the long term-safety of the barrier system and the account of alternative methods of disposal; Deep Borehole Disposal in particular. Other issues that have been raised concern the methods used when procuring evidence in support of claims (i.e. whether they are scientific or not), the suitability of the chosen site of Forsmark, as well as the risk of deliberate intrusion. Furthermore, the two organizations are critical to the fact that the nuclear waste company refuses to submit material and completions concerning the long term-safety to the court. This means that any uncertainties, such as the process of copper corrosion, will not be thoroughly reviewed in the open court.

SSNC and MKG agree with the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority and the Swedish Council for Nuclear Waste on several issues, and conclude that to have submitted the application in its present state renders the process of reviewing it tedious and non-efficient, in a constant wait for completions. Thus, the two organizations question whether the application should have been submitted in the first place.

The statement raises concerns regarding inadequacies on the following issues:

  1. Knowledge concerning the function of the man-made barriers of copper and clay
  2. Accounting for alternative methods, Deep Borehole Disposal in particular
  3. In the basis for evaluating the so called “zero alternative”, that is to say what is to be done if the license application is rejected
  4. Knowledge concerning the risk of permafrost and earthquakes during an ice age
  5. In the basis for determining the suitability of Forsmark as a site
  6. In the basis for determining the potential benefits of an inland location
  7. In the basis for determining the risk of deliberate intrusion

 

 

 

 

 

Logga in