26 June 2015 |

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and MKG in their third larger statement: reject or demand larger completions in the license application to build a repository for spent nuclear fuel

On June 26, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC)and the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG) submitted their third statement to the Land- and Environmental Court, answering the latest referral from the court in the review of completion. The two organizations still lack answers to several critical issues, making them question if the application should be further reviewed. The organizations primarily claim in their statement is that the application have to be rejected. 

On June 26, SSNC and MKG submitted their third statement to the Land- and Environmental Court, answering the latest referral from the court in the review of completion of the application of a final disposal for spent nuclear fuel by the 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 for long-term safety (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. Given this magnitude of what is missing in the application, the SSNC and MKG primarily claim that the court have to reject the application. The application was submitted without this adequate documentation and makes the review process long and ineffective.

The SSNC and MKG also claim that the alternative method deep borehole should be seen as an option in the review at the court, and that the question of radiation safety also should be handled by the court.

Logga in