KINGS CLIFFE WASTE WATCHERS
Arguments against the New Applications
Examples of letters
National nuclear waste site, not a local one
In the absence of other sites coming forward, King’s Cliffe will be the national nuclear waste site for the South of England and the Midlands. This seems to be a very strategic decision, and yet it has been made effectively by Augean, with the Secretary of State meekly going along with it. It is doubtful that nuclear power stations will be sited in this haphazard way.
Extra pollution from radioactivity/hazardous
More radioactive waste means more radioactive emissions; more poisonous, toxic materials means more potential danger from leakage
Surrounded by Augean sites
We know they have Thornhaugh where they have already buried ‘exempt’ radioactive waste, and we know that clay from King’s Cliffe is going there (for what purpose we can only imagine). We also know that Augean has bought Cooks Hole next to Thornhaugh, and is busily excavating it (for what purpose we can only imagine). We also know that Augean have tried to buy more land near to these three sites (for what purpose we can only imagine).
Amount of vehicle movements + queuing at dump
Up to 100 lorries a day can be expected, according to Augean. That is a lorry very 7 minutes. Apart from the queuing, how do we suppose they are going to check and carefully unload the consignments of waste?
Safety of LLW on top of excavated basal layer
The waste from 2013 -2016 will be put in cells from which all the clay has been excavated before some of it has been returned. According to Environment Agency Groundwater Regulations this is not good practice. Augean claims it is fine because the 2010 regulations came in after the application for radioactive waste was made. WW argue that this means Augean are continuing to fill up a cell which current regulations would not allow.
Three applications at once causing confusion
Whether this is simply an attempt to speed things up, or an attempt to confuse is open to doubt. But it certainly causes confusion and this would seem to be to Augean’s advantage.
Unconvincing reasons for why dump is necessary
Augean argue that they have to have an extension until 2016 in order to fill up the site and enable them to restore it according to their 2006 permission. WW argue that this is a ludicrous reason: they could just as easily ask Northants County Council to change the permission to restore the site as it will be in 2013.
Groundwater penetration
This is inevitable, and Augean admit it. Obviously, the more waste they put in, the more will penetrate into the groundwater which flows towards the village and emerges in its springs.
Monitoring insufficient & not independent
Monitoring will be in the hands of Augean, and the Environment Agency will check Augean’s records once a quarter at the most, and sometimes only once a year. As the EA is the licensor of the site neither of these two bodies can be said to be independent. The Inspector said that monitoring of vehicle movements to ensure they didn’t go down the Stamford Road towards the village ‘would be obvious to local residents who could inform the Council’. This lax attitude hardly sets the tone for effective monitoring.
Opinions of local people
Over 50 % of local people voted in the referendum and 98% of them opposed the disposal of radioactive waste, as did Northants County Council, East Northants District Council, Peterborough City Council, Oundle Town Council, and 8 parish councils. This should count for something, and should at least give Augean an idea of how popular their plan is.
Safety record of Augean
The HSE has been investigating the explosion at the Cannock plant in 2010 which injured two workmen – the same site where Augean were fined £90,000 for negligent practices in 2009. In 2008 the King’s Cliffe site only scored ‘average’ in Augean’s own assessment.
Risk to wildlife
The only assessment tool used by Augean for predicting effects of radiation on wildlife – ERICA - is, by its own admission, incomplete. Also, the company’s assertion that animals will not burrow in the dump because there is no food buried there, shows a somewhat ‘incomplete’ understanding of animal behaviour.
Proximity & need
Same arguments again. King’s Cliffe is 90 miles away from the nearest nuclear site. The assertion by Augean and the Inspector that it is the nearest to anywhere in the South or Midlands, no matter how far in mileage terms, because it is the only site, does not really show much understanding of the point of the proximity principle.
As for need – there may be a national need to dispose of radioactive waste, but the need to dispose of it in King’s Cliffe, as opposed to Harwell whose lifetime plan includes such a dump, is driven purely by opportunism and greed.
No benefit for local area
No extra jobs, though let’s not forget the generous community fund (£5 per tonne out of the estimated £500 per tonne Augean will make – and we get to keep the waste afterwards!), and those handouts from landfill taxes which Augean is obliged to pay. Yes, money is always welcome, and it has been put to good uses, but it must be weighed against anxieties that many in the community feel, the potential effects on house prices and the local economy, and it is only a short-term benefit – one day (hopefully) Augean will go, but the toxins and radioactivity will stay in our parish for a good deal longer.
Worries about higher levels of radioactivity being permitted
200Bqs/gm now, but Keekle Head recently applied for 500Bqs/gm, and there is no stated limit on what can go into landfill. Augean made the point that it could be up to 4000Bqs/gm – untrue as it turns out, at least for now.
Consultation workshops
While we are grateful to Augean for offering workshops to explain aspects of their proposal, we would have been happier if these had not been scheduled for a Thursday and a Friday, at times when most people would have been unable to attend them because of work commitments.
And the other arguments from last time…?
Yes, they still apply, but a little bit more this time.
So object
Your
Address
Date
Dear Sir,
I wish to object to the application by Augean to dump radioactive waste in the King’s Cliffe landfill.
I am worried about…..
This might mean that….
Yours faithfully,
(sign your name)
(PRINT YOUR NAME)
How to set out your letter or Email
Writing, or emailing, a letter of objection is no different from any other correspondence..
It does not have to be long. It does not have to be brilliantly written. It just has to say what you want it to say.
1. Start off by making it clear that you object to the application by Augean to dump radioactive waste in the King’s Cliffe landfill.
2. Then say what you object to. You can use one of the suggestions below.
3. Then explain your reason in a couple of sentences, or more. (You can get some ideas from our letters below, but please don’t copy them exactly).
That’s all, but you can always add more reasons, and then explain them.
Transport of waste
Dear Sir,
I wish to object to the planning proposal by Augean Plc to dump nuclear, radioactive waste in the King’s Cliffe landfill site.
I understand from the plans that this waste is going to be transported along public roads in bags. Since it is coming from all over the country, this will include local roads, most of which go through villages and towns in our area.
There has already been one incident of a bag full of toxic waste headed for this dump spilling onto the A1 near Peterborough in November last year. On that occasion, the road was closed for 18 hours, causing inconvenience and disruption.
What will be the situation if one of these radioactive bags has a spill? According to the plans, emergency services in all regions will know exactly what to do, and all that needs to be done is to sweep up the radioactive dust! The company says there will be no danger to the health of people living nearby, but can they be sure of this?
Suppose the bags burst open near a school, or a hospital?
I know that the site already take waste from a wide area of the country, but this category of waste is far more dangerous.
I am also aware that there is a principle called the Proximity Principle which says that waste has to be put as close to its origin as possible. As King’s Cliffe is far from any existing nuclear installation, then it is hardly a suitable place for a site of this nature. This Principle appears in European legislation, national policy documents, spatial strategies of the East Midlands Regional Assembly and the waste plans of Northamptonshire County Council. If all these organisations are going to follow their stated policies, then the application can hardly be allowed, at least not without a legal challenge.
I hope that the County Council will look very closely at these details before granting permission.
Yours faithfully,
Safety
I have read the proposals by Augean to deposit radioactive waste from the nuclear industry in King’s Cliffe landfill, and I am not impressed by their promises concerning safety.
They produce a lot of calculations to show that the doses will be low in the case of accidents such as spillage, an air crash on the site, or leakage into the water supply, but these are all based on mathematical equations, and not on experience.
For example, with the air crash scenario they claim that the only danger is that people might breathe in the dispersed dust, and that this will only happen for 30 minutes. But what if the dust settles on fruit trees, crops, water which is later eaten or drunk by people? This is not in the equation, so their models cannot be accurate.
Is it fair to expect us to trust our lives, and our childrens’, to some untested mathematical calculations? They should not think of dumping such waste here until they have a real idea of what the effects might be.
For these reasons, I wish you to stop the application.
Monitoring
Regarding the possible dumping of nuclear waste in the King’s Cliffe site, I have to express my concern about the monitoring arrangements.
Monitoring of the waste leaving the nuclear sites is done by the sender, and monitoring of the waste that comes into King’s Cliffe will be done by the site staff. The sender depends on King’s Cliffe to take its waste, while Augean depends on the sender for waste from which it makes its profit. These two have a mutual interest and neither can be regarded as a neutral, independent monitor.
The Environment Agency is supposed to monitor both the sender and the receiver, but it is their job to arrange for the disposal of the waste as part of the Government’s decommissioning process, and so they depend on both parties for this to happen. This means that the Environment Agency are not neutral, independent monitors, either.
So there will be no independent monitoring.
The Environment Agency’s monitoring will consist of looking at the records of the senders and receivers once or twice a year. Only in exceptional circumstances will they carry out monitoring of radiation levels for themselves. Various health agencies will monitor the site staff, but no-one will monitor the impact of the site on the health of local people.
Dumping nuclear waste at these, comparatively high, levels of radioactivity in landfill outside the direct control of the nuclear industry has never been done before in this country. It is an experiment that needs to be properly monitored to ensure safety, but this is clearly not going to happen.
I would ask you not to allow this application to proceed, given the real concerns of local people as to their health and safety.
Red Kites
Has anyone considered the danger to the red kites from the radioactive dump at King’s Cliffe?
These beautiful birds have become a feature, almost a symbol, of the area and their re-introduction into the local ecology has been a triumph.
How resistant are they to radiation, I wonder?
They are regularly seen in the woods next to the dump, and presumably feed from carrion, and drink from water, which will soon be full of radioactive emissions.
I am surprised that there has been so little concern into the possible fate of these lovely creatures.
Lack of consultation
I am appalled by the lack of proper consultation over the introduction of radioactive waste into the King’s Cliffe landfill, and I am asking the Council to stop the application..
Augean promised extensive consultation, but this seems to have been little more than a meeting at King’s Cliffe which was poorly advertised by the company, and in which local views don’t seem to have been taken into consideration. This was more of an information session than a genuine consultation.
I am dismayed that the company did not see fit to consult beyond a few, nearby villages. What about Stamford, Corby, Oundle and Peterborough? All of these towns are within 10 miles of the site, and so within the affected area.
I have been reliably informed that proper stakeholder consultation is necessary before plans like this can go ahead. Well, there has not been enough. Augean need to sit down with locals and answer all their questions, especially now that we are better informed about the matter.
Danger of more dumps in area
I am writing to object about the proposed radioactive dump at King’s Cliffe.
My main concern is that this will be the thin end of the wedge, and that if the Council gives its permission we will soon see more dumps.
If the site is so suitable because of the natural clay base, and because of its central location in the country, then isn’t there a danger that more landfills in the area might be persuaded to receive nuclear waste?
I know that the tip at Thornhaugh, only a few miles away, is also owned by Augean, who own the King’s Cliffe site. Other local operators might also seek to bid for this lucrative waste with the result that our area will become a radioactive hotspot.
The Government will look first for places where there is little opposition, and where the County Council seems amenable.
If the Council passes this, how can it be sure that Augean will not apply to keep the dump open after 2013? Can we really believe that the Government will not support them, since it has found a site with plenty of room for expansion? What opposition will the Council be able to put to expansion or prolongation once it has agreed to the initial application?
Once upon a time the Council might have thought that allowing toxic waste would be the end of the matter. It was wrong.
Another problem is that King’s Cliffe could end up as a ‘new Drigg’. Augean is using the argument in its application that it can ignore the proximity principle because King’s Cliffe will be the only site in the UK licensed to take this type of nuclear waste, and therefore it is the nearest to all nuclear waste senders. This sounds as if, initially at least, King’s Cliffe will be the new national Low Level Waste Repository. Granting the application could make this de facto and our county will become the dumping ground for everyone else’s (since Northants has no nuclear facilities of its own – yet!) waste.
For all these reasons, I urge the Council to reject this application.
Enough dumps in the area
I am opposing the Augean plans to bring nuclear waste to the village. Aren’t there enough waste dumps here already?
Within a two mile radius of King’s Cliffe, there is the toxic waste landfill, Thornhaugh landfill, and the new facility between King’s Cliffe and Wansford which continually produces an appalling noxious smell.
Now they are going to introduce radioactive, nuclear waste into the King’s Cliffe landfill as well.
Surely we have taken our fair share of other people’s waste. Why should our community take any more?
Financial weakness of Augean Plc
I wish to oppose the planning application for the dumping of nuclear waste in the King’s Cliffe landfill site.
I note that the company applying for permission to deposit radioactive nuclear waste in the King’s Cliffe landfill are Augean Plc.
Any glance at the stock market reports shows that this is hardly a financially stable institution to be in charge of such an important and sensitive undertaking.
Augean’s share price plummeted so low in July – to 31p – that they had to fend off a takeover bid. There are reports that they are still in discussion with One Fifty One, an Irish investment company.
Augean have been hit hard by the recession, and contracts for waste have fallen. I suppose that the potentially lucrative market for radioactive waste (£300 per tonne, compared with £45 per tonne for toxic waste) – presumably the reason behind their current application – might restore their fortunes.
The problem is, that this nuclear waste, if transferred to Augean, will no longer be in the hands of the UK nuclear industry, which has a long-term responsibility for its safekeeping, but with a private enterprise which may well soon disappear.
Who knows who will be guarding this material in a year’s time?
I ask the Council to oppose this application.
No health monitoring of villagers
I think that the application by Augean should be refused.
I understand from reading the information about the plans for putting radioactive waste into the King’s Cliffe landfill that the health of the local population is not going to be monitored.
The recent example of toxic waste causing birth defects in Corby shows that this is a mistake. It is well known that radioactive emissions can trigger cancer and leukaemia, and the Health Protection Agency admits that all radiation is dangerous.
In this country, unusual cancer clusters have been detected near Harwell and Aldermaston, and Sellafield, and in Germany there was outrage recently at reports of significant clusters near nuclear sites.
Sometimes, such cancers do not appear for decades after the start of the radiation source, which makes it all the more important to have effective monitoring so that remedial action can be taken at the earliest opportunity. Of course, it is always difficult to prove that such cancers are caused by radiation, and with this site in an unusually high radon area, the link is even harder to prove. No doubt the site managers will deny any connection, but effective monitoring could reduce the risks.
There is also the important point about the feelings of local people. For generations we are going to have to put up with the threat from this dump hanging over us, and the very real possibility that our children, and their children, are going to become ill as a result of it. This is a terrible sentence to live under, and to know that we are going to be ignored by the health authorities makes it even worse.
If such monitoring is to be refused, the council should think carefully about whether this site should be allowed to go ahead at all. After all, the recent judgement against Corby Borough Council shows that the link between radiation and birth defects does not have to be proved scientifically.
Site on an aquifer
I note that the Kings Cliffe landfill site, in which it is proposed to dump nuclear waste, overlies a major aquifer; the Lincolnshire limestone.
This is the same aquifer from which a large proportion of Peterborough’s drinking water is drawn.
Augean, the company responsible for the site, which already contains toxic waste, admit that radioactivity may well seep into the groundwater but assure us that there is no possibility of anyone drinking it.
I don’t have confidence in these assurances, and I would like the Council to reject the application on these grounds.
Dose levels are misleading
I wish to oppose Augean’s application to deposit Low Level radioactive waste at King’s Cliffe because I believe that the figures they are using to guarantee our safety are misleading and unscientific.
Augean assure us that we have a ‘one in a million’ chance of contracting a fatal cancer from radioactive emissions from the King’s Cliffe waste dump.
What does this mean, exactly? It seems to be a figure picked at random because it sounds impressive and is a round number. I don’t believe there is any scientific basis behind it.
Likewise the figure of 0.02 millisieverts as a level for emissions from the site. It sounds very scientific, but when you read the proposals you find it has been chosen because the Government says it equates to the ‘one in a million’.
This is pseudo-science, designed to impress but with very little basis. This accusation can be made against much of Augean’s risk assessment, which is based on modelling, rather than experience.
It boils down to the fact that villagers in the area are being asked to entrust their health and that of their children to the accuracy of random, or untested, statistics.
‘One in a million’ might sound a very low chance of getting cancer, but there is a ‘one in a million’ chance of winning the lottery, yet every week at least one person wins it!
Possible aircraft crash on site
I am asking the Council not to allow planning permission for radioactive waste to be put into the King’s Cliffe landfill.
This is because I have no faith in their promises that the site will be safe. The models they use are just theoretical and don’t take all the factors into account.
The possibility of a fighter aircraft from RAF Wittering crashing onto the King’s Cliffe waste dump – the runway is only a few hundred metres away – has been considered by Augean in their application to add radioactive, nuclear, waste to the mix, but their answer to this problem is hardly convincing.
Using a mathematical model, which has never been tested in practice, they claim the resulting dose would be very small, and only effective within 30 minutes of the crash to anyone standing nearby. Unfortunately, they fail to consider what happens to the dust containing radioactive fallout that will be created by the crash.
This will fall on crops, fruit trees, vegetables and in streams, and will be ingested by animals and humans. A methodology which omits this basic characteristic of a crash is hardly one we ought to be putting our faith in, but this is all Augean has to offer as its safety case for all possible disaster scenarios.
Effects on ecology
I am writing to ask the Council to reject the proposal by Augean to put radioactive waste into the King’s Cliffe landfill site.
Augean claim that dumping radioactive waste in the King’s Cliffe landfill will have no effect on the ecology of the area. This is nonsense.
Radioactive isotopes are not normally part of the normal diet of English flora and fauna. Have they done tests to establish the effects of radioactive emissions on large and small animals, and on plants?
They took great trouble to move the newt colony from an area near to the site (why did they do this if there would be no effect on them?), which must have disrupted the local ecology to some extent.
They have built a fence to keep out larger animals, but not the smaller creatures on which they feed.
In four years time they are going to create a ‘natural’ area on the site where beasts and plants may frolic and flower among the radioactive emissions which will continue for at least the next 60 years.
I don’t see this as likely to happen. I appreciate the green intentions of the company but these might be better served by not putting in radioactive waste in the first place.
Effects on local economy
I am writing to oppose the planning application to put radioactive waste into the King’s Cliffe landfill site because I believe it is going to have a bad effect on the economy of the local area.
King’s Cliffe, at the moment is a thriving village, made up of a healthy mixture of families who have lived there for generations and who work in agriculture or trades in the local area, together with an influx of newcomers, many of whom are second generation.
Unlike some villages in the area, King’s Cliffe is growing. It has shops, a post office, provision for more housing, and is a focal point for other villages in the area. These facilities have meant, along with its great beauty, that it is an attractive place to live. The Endowed School, and Middle School, mean that it is a magnet for young couples moving into the area who wish to bring up children in a safe environment with a community feel. It is this latter group on who the future prosperity of the village and by extension, the local area, depend.
And now there is going to be a radioactive, nuclear waste dump just a mile from the village.
Irrespective of the actual degree of harm done by emissions from the dump, what is the effect going to be on the perceptions of people.
What are buyers going to think of crops, meat, eggs, fruit produced in King’s Cliffe, which will soon become infamous in the area because of its dump?
What is going to be the effect on the small, but significant tourist trade in the area?
How many young couples, on whom the future prosperity of the village and surrounding area depends, will choose King’s Cliffe, with its radioactive emissions, as a suitable place to bring up children?
How many of the new houses will be filled?
How far will the influence of the dump have an effect? Will people feel safe moving to Oundle (just 8 miles away), for example? After all, how many people would choose to relocate to within 8 miles of Sellafield?
This dump will provide no extra employment and no benefit to the local economy. It will diminish the reputation and attractiveness of the area, and will almost certainly be prejudicial to the economy. The real worry is that people might actually move away because of it. One might argue that this has not happened so far with the toxic waste dump, but the fact is that radioactivity has such a baleful aura in public perception that the dump is soon going to become notorious over a wide area.
For these reasons, I ask the Council to reject the application.
Landfill is near centres of population
I am writing to oppose the application to dump Low Level Waste in the landfill site at King’s Cliffe.
I understand that one of the reasons that the site is so desirable is that it is in an apparently out-of-the-way, rural location – a mile from the nearest, small villages, and not near too many houses, etc.
This is actually a misconception. Within 10 miles of the site there are the urban centres of Oundle Stamford, Peterborough and Corby. Together they have a population in excess of 250,000 people. There are huge house-building plans for both Peterborough and Corby which mean that in sixty years – the very conservative estimation for the danger period of this site – this number will be significantly greater.
We know that most of Peterborough’s drinking water is taken from the same limestone aquifer on which the site lies. We have no proven guarantees that airborne emissions cannot travel the 10 miles (and less) to these urban centres.
As Peterborough and Stamford are not within the County boundaries there is a danger that the Council might neglect the practical, and emotive, effects on the prosperity of these centres.
The spatial strategies of the EMRA and the EERA seem blissfully unaware of the sudden appearance of a radioactive threat close to populated centres, and the MKSM plan makes no mention of it. I cannot believe the presence of a nuclear waste installation in their midst is going to enhance the development of these strategies.
I oppose the plan because the dump is going to be a significant threat, real or perceived, to a very large number of people, and it is going to conflict with long-standing regional development policies.
Human rights
I would like to oppose the planning application to dump radioactive waste in the King’s Cliffe site, because it goes against my human rights, and those of others who will have to live near the site.
Here are just some of the rights that will be infringed:
- The human right to a safe and healthy environment.
- The human right to the highest attainable standard of health.
- The human right to ecologically sustainable development.
- The human right to an adequate standard of living, including access to safe food and water.
- The human right of the child to live in an environment appropriate for physical and mental development.
Since the proposal guarantees that we will be subject to radioactive emissions, and since the Health Protection Agency admit that all radiation is harmful, then it is inevitable that all these rights will be infringed.
I might add another human right: the freedom from fear. None of us will be confident of bringing up children in an environment that even Augean admits will be polluted. Who will want to come and live near here?
I believe that the Council has the duty to stand up for the rights of those in its care, and under the Human Rights Act it has he legal obligation to do so.
I can’t believe that after the shocking way that Corby Council acted towards those poor children Northamptonshire County Council are going to deliberately do the same to ours.
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.
