KINGS CLIFFE WASTE WATCHERS
The Proposal
Augean PLC are applying for permission to deposit up to 249,999 tonnes per year of Low Level Radioactive waste, mainly from the nuclear industry, in the King's Cliffe landfill site in North-East Northamptonshire. The application would run until 2013.
The Government needs to decomission the UK's out-of-date nuclear power stations and research centres, since they are now old and unsafe. This entails demolishing the reactors, and all the structures that housed them. It includes getting rid of anything on the sites that would have been contaminated with radioactivity, including buildings, roads and even soil. The land will then be classified as 'clean', and can be used for other activities.
An example, which is used in Augean's application, is that of Harwell, in Oxfordshire, the site of a nuclear research centre. Harwell wish to complete their new Science and Innovation Park where the research centre used to be, and so need to do something with the old, contaminated structures.
The really dangerous, high and intermediate level wastes, are being dealt with separately, but most of the rubble and soil is classified as Low Level Waste, (LLW) or Very Low Level Waste (VLLW), and it is this that is the subject of Augean's application. Up until now, LLW and VLLW has been set to the LLW Repository at Drigg,near Sellafield in Cumbria, but Drigg is expected to be full by 2037, and so an alternative solution is needed.
As this is a national issue, since 2007 Government agencies have begun to draw up policies for the safe disposal of this LLW and VLLW, of which there is estimated to be about 3 million tonnes (cubic metres). In July 2009, the Nuclear Decomissioning Authority (NDA), which is in charge of the process, began a consultation on the best options for this disposal. It will report early in 2010.
There seem to be 3 options for the burial of LLW and VLLW that is below what the Government has decided is the safe' level of radioactivity of 200 Bequerels.
1. Build a new LLW Repository
2. Dispose of the waste at existing nuclear sites
3. Dispose of the waste in special landfill sites
Option 3 is the one that is being followed with the Augean application. If the application is successful, King's Cliffe would be the first landfill in the country outside the direct control of the nuclear industry to accept nuclear waste.
For more on the Government's plans, click here
The Background
What Wastewatchers Say
We do not deny the problem that the Government faces, and that LLW needs to be disposed of, but we have concerns about the way this is being managed.
The process appears to be done by stealth, rather than with public knowledge (did YOU know about the NDA's consultation?). This is not the best way to gain public confidence, especially when the first the public are likely to hear about it is when an application for a nuclear waste dump arrives on their doorstep.
Option 3 is the cheapest for the Government, especially when it is private contractors, like Augean, that will face most of the costs. This is not the best criterion for managing such material.
Option 3 is the least safe since the waste will be outside of the control of the nuclear industry, in the hands of private operators who may have no experience of managing such materials, and not subject to the controls of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate who monitor the safety of sites with nuclear material.
Option 3 involves no strategic plan for deciding on the best locations for nuclear waste. Any operator who wishes to apply to take waste may do so, and so the distribution of these waste dumps will be haphazard.
The supposition that LLW is safe is debatable. Up until recently, all radioactive waste was deemed harmful, and had to be shut away. The category of VLLW (up to 40 Bqs), which not all countries accept, was brought in to justify possible burial in landfill. Now the limits for landfill burial have been raised to 200Bqs. These limits seem moveable, and subject more to the need to dispose of such waste than by any scientiic evidence as to its safety.
Option 2 is not popular with the nuclear sites, since it would involve them with cost and inconvenience. They need a 'clean' site so they can rebuild, or sell off the land.
The Example of Harwell
Harwell, in Oxfordshire, is used as an example in Augean's application for a nuclear site that is expected to send waste to King's Cliffe.
Harwell declared, in 2006, that it could not bury its own waste because of the expense, and because the site was unsuitable as it overlies a major aquifer. In fact, so does the King's Cliffe site. Interestingly, in 2009 Harwell changed its mind and consulted, planned and budgeted for a dump on its own site for waste up to 40 Bqs (which is the majority of what it would send to King's Cliffe) 'unless an off-site route is identified'. It thus appears that Harwell could do without King's Cliffe.
The local economy of Harwell benefitted hugely from the nuclear reasearch establishment, in terms of construction jobs, jobs on the site, local suppliers, housing and infrastructure, Government grants and investments. Now they are going to create more jobs through demolition, reconstruction, etc. Harwell is not poor, but because they don't want to pay to deal with the waste from which they have profitted, King's Cliffe is expected to take it. King's Cliffe will not benefit economically since no extra jobs will be created, but the effects on farming next to a radioactively-contaminated dump may be dire.
Harwell will never be able to completely 'clean' their site; there will always be some residual contamination. All that this process will achieve is two 'dirty' sites in place of one - hardly the 'green' option.
The Application
The full application can be read here
Good luck!
You are viewing the text version of this site.
To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.
Need help? check the requirements page.
