presentation of pro hanhikivi association .10

Presentation of Pro Hanhikivi Association to the Blue Ribbon Comission

Eurajoki Finland 22 10 2010Eurajoki Finland 22.10.2010

Pro Hanhikivi ry 22.10.2010

The association Pro Hanhikivi has now worked intensively with voluntary workers for over threehas now worked intensively with voluntary workers for over three years in Pyhäjoki, in the surrounding areas and on national level in order to get the problems of nuclear power construction, g p p ,nuclear power usage and their environmental hazards to be viewed critically in the nuclear power decisions.


Fennovoima Oy does not have a solution for the final disposal of the high level nuclear wastedisposal of the high‐level nuclear waste

We have criticized the nuclear power construction in general and especially the Fennovoima project. One of the most important reasons for this has been the fact that Fennovoima company does not have a solution for the final disposal of the used nuclear fuel, i.e. high‐level waste in spite of their plan to construct a new


nuclear power plant in northern Finland.

Fennovoima Oy’s project puts in danger endangered habitat typesd h l d l f land species on this land uplift coastal area, important resting

areas of arctic migratory birds and the good ecological state of the Bothnian Bay coastal waterwaysBothnian Bay coastal waterways.

This project does not representsustainable use of areassustainable use of areas.


Best available technique? (BAT)

Long distance discharge of cooling waters to deepld b l d i l h di h isea area would be less detrimental than discharging

waters on the very shallow coastal area.

Better alternative for the environment would still be: cooling tower solution, which would prevent g pheat discharges and eutrophication of the sea.


Nuclear energy is not a sustainable solution i ll l i ll i ll l ll

h l d h d l

economically, ecologically, socially or culturally

We have also criticised the decision‐in‐principle given by the municipality and the Parliament b h b h h fbecause it has been given without the existence of the prerequisites for the decision.

Because the whole process is very controversial and l f k d h (contains a lot of mistakes and shortcomings (even

illegalities?), in our opinion, we have made a l i h i i d l d icomplaint to the EU commission and appealed in

this matter to the EU Parliament. The European i ill d l i h hi l i d l


Union will deal with this complaint and appeal.

The Fennovoima does not own the land!In spite of what Fennovoima repeatedly claims in public (e g to you yesterday)

Hanhikivi peninsula

claims in public (e.g. to you yesterday) they do not have the necessary estate and water areas in Pyhäjoki so that the y jproject could be carried out according to the plan. They neither have the

t t h b th t hmanagement to a harbor area that has been presented in the plan nor the place to take water to the cooling systemtake water to the cooling system.

This matter is disputed continuously Fennovoima does not have the green (land)

If they are forcing us to it, we will be ready to go to the court in this matter

and dark blue (sea) areasHarbor


y gCooling water

When the first nuclear reactor was decided to be built in Eurajoki in the 1970's, it was promised that nuclear waste will not remain there. This high‐level waste was indeed exported for se eral ears from Finland to the former So iet Union Noseveral years from Finland to the former Soviet Union. Now, however, Onkalo is being built in Eurajoki which is to be taken into use in 2020 although there are disputes about the long‐into use in 2020 although there are disputes about the longterm safety of the storage methods of waste.

.


We the citizens of Pyhäjoki and Simo (Simo is the secondWe, the citizens of Pyhäjoki and Simo, (Simo is the second alternative location of the Fennovoima’s nuclear power plant,) are in a way in the same situation as was Eurajoki in the 1970's that high‐level waste should not stay in our residential area. Fennovoima has presented plans to store the waste in the Onkalo i E j kiin Eurajoki.

Because the owners of the Onkalo (Posiva Oy) are not willing to make agreements with Fennovoima, the company must probably build their own cave somewhere and then naturally the new places P häjoki or Simo or both as being the targets of n clear po erPyhäjoki or Simo or both as being the targets of nuclear power plans may come into question.


. The final disposal place is now being built by the companies but the supervision of the waste burial places will be transferred to thethe supervision of the waste burial places will be transferred to the State of Finland when the final disposal ends. Will the funds reserved for the disposal be enough at the stage when the actual business, i.e. the production and selling of electricity have ended?

Have the funds remained or has some economic recession possibly cut down the funds reserve? It is been estimated that the merecut down the funds reserve? It is been estimated that the mere demolition of the nuclear power plant costs even about four times as much as does the construction.


as much as does the construction.

Risks of nuclear power are far too big when compared to advantages

With respect to the usable life of nuclear power, the production of extremely dangerous waste is ethically and completely immoral.

In order to gain short‐term advantages, there is willingness to pass on the risks to the future generations to last for eternityon the risks to the future generations, to last for eternity.

The high level nuclear waste removed from the reactor in otherThe high‐level nuclear waste removed from the reactor, in other words, the most dangerous waste is being kept and cooled under very risky circumstances, in water basins on the location of the y y ,nuclear power plant for dozens of years before the possible final disposal.


The image given to the public about the f l d l f l dfinal disposal of nuclear waste and its success is usually very positive in Finland, as if all the problems had been solvedas if all the problems had been solved.

Without taking a stand to the technical problems of the final disposalproblems of the final disposal, it is impossible to predict how the storage would succeed during the comingstorage would succeed during the coming thousands and tens of thousands of years.


When taking into account the development of the current civilisation and how human being may possibly act in the futurecivilisation and how human being may possibly act in the future, it is very likely that the waste will not remain untouched in the way planned and for the period of time planned, y p p p ,... in other words forever.

This subject has been dealt with in the documentaryThis subject has been dealt with in the documentary “Into Eternity” by Mr Michael Madsen in a very interesting way. http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/p // y /


Will Finland be an exporter of electricity produced with nuclear power and importerproduced with nuclear power and importer of nuclear waste in the future?

The most scary scenarios (e g the FinnishThe most scary scenarios (e.g. the Finnish Innovation Fund SITRA’s report in 1994) have seen the industrial future of Finland to be based seen the industrial future of Finland to be basedon these and on the excavation of uranium.

Unfortunately, the decisions of the Parliament from last summer also indicate this.

Will Finland become a nuclear waste reservation?


nuclear waste reservation?

Nuclear waste management

Investigation of STUK (Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Finland) into the long-term safety of Posiva’s (Olkiluoto)Finland) into the long term safety of Posiva s (Olkiluoto) project. Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, former Secretary General, Professor Matti Saarnisto:

Th i h f f h fi l di l l fThe prognosis on the safety of the final disposal place after the beginning of the next glacial period are only speculation and do not base on scientific factsand do not base on scientific facts.

And as we know:

!! In the USA, the Yucca mountain project has been run down because after 20 years of research the geological long‐term safety could not be verified.

!! The final disposal location of Gorleben in Germany has faced similar problems. In the Asse II low‐level and intermediate‐level waste grave the waste barrels have

d l k l h h h d l h f h d f


started to leak, although they were supposed to last there for thousands of years.

Supply of fuel causesSupply of fuel causes massive environmental damagesdamages

• Uranium is searched from 1000 locations in Finland.

• This is straightforward about 15 year‐process of mapping the targets.

• The targets are put in line worldwide, mining industry starts in the best ones.

• The Finnish targets will be taken into use, sooner or later


Energy and waste is politics –Wh t d th Fi t?What does the Finns want?

Finns do NOT want more nuclear power: •51% of citizens is against and only 34% in favour of it(Research carried out by Taloustutkimus 3/2010)

i l d l ll d f ld b d d•In Finland almost all need of energy could be produced with renewable energy.

W d t t l dWe do not want more nuclear power and more nuclear waste!


Nuclear power creates an unnecessary risk.p yWe want Finland to have a sustainable

climate and energy policyclimate and energy policy.

RenewablesRenewables –– YesYesRenewablesRenewables –– YesYesNuclearNuclear powerpower and and wastewaste –– NoNo


Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!

H l M ij l & H H l ääHelena Maijala, & Hanna Halmeenpää,

Chairperson Vice Chairperson

[email protected]

www.prohanhikivi.net – association


www.hanhikivi.net ‐ information

presentation of pro hanhikivi association .10

Documents