Latest Arguments

As time goes on, and we find more information, we are refining our arguments. Here are some of our latest and strongest.

The Proximity Principle is consistent in European, National, Regional, County and Local waste policies. It states that waste should be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations.

The Environment Agency evade this principle by arguiing that if KIng's Cliffe is the only appropriate installation, it must, therefore, be the nearest.

The Proximity Principle was put in place both to reduce carbon emissions from road journeys, and to instil a sense of responsibility in waste producers that it was up to them to dispose of their own waste.

To cynically evade, and demean, this principle, which was included with the best intentions, and which will be a significant help to reducing carbon emissions is unbecoming of a body which styles itself the 'Environment' Agency.

This map shows just how far King's Cliffe is from the decommissioned facilities, and how much its location represents the abuse of the Proximity Principle.

It should not be forgotten that, due to the inappropriate engineering of the site (see below), large amounts of liquid leachate (rainwater that has seeped through the waste and gathered radioactivity) has to be removed in tankers and taken to Avonmouth for treatment and disposal in the Bristol Channel. This will be in excess of 5000 tonnes per year, necessitating yet more vehicle movements at 156 miles a time!

To qualify for a licence, awarded by the Environment Agency, a landfill site wishing to take Low Level Radioactive Waste has to show Best Available Techniques in the construction and management of its site. In September 2009, Dounreay was granted a licence.

As you can see, Dounreay has divided its waste into two categories: HVLA (High Volume Low Activity) Waste (below left) up to 40Bqs/gm, and LLW (Low Level Waste) (below right) from 40 Bqs/gm upwards.

King's Cliffe will have one site for both of these categories (lower picture).

In response to our query, the Environment Agency simply stated that Dounreay is different because it has higer levels of LLW.

This may be true, but it doesn't explain why King's Cliffe will treat LLW from 40 to 200 Bqs/gm as if it is HVLA. Nor does it explain why the planned HVLA facility at Dounreay is dry, while at KIng's Cliffe there will be no roof, and so inevitably, bags of radioactive waste will be dumped in pools of water...

The Environment Agency have granted a licence to King's Cliffe, stating: 'Augean’s application reflects the principles of BAT for disposal of solid LLW up to 200Bq/g. We have considered the level of management options and engineering controls submitted by Augean and consider them to represent BAT.'

We are always being encouraged to have faith in the experts. So let's see what the recent performance is like of those in whose hands we are committing the future safety of our community.