10.04.2013 Views

Appendix CRF - Part 3 - Northamptonshire County Council

Appendix CRF - Part 3 - Northamptonshire County Council

Appendix CRF - Part 3 - Northamptonshire County Council

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

the Environmental Permitting Regulations (formerly the Landfill Regulations) and<br />

which applies to non-radioactive pollutants. Indeed, there is a view that that BAT<br />

and BPM are synonymous. Many BAT features of new landfill sites for<br />

hazardous waste such as the East Northants Resource Management Facility are<br />

effectively prescribed (for example, the permeability performance of barrier<br />

layers), whereas BPM features are not so specifically prescribed.<br />

11.2.6 The BPEO study undertaken for the example Harwell waste stream is likely to be<br />

typical for all decommissioning waste arising. That study indicates that shallow<br />

disposal in an engineered facility is likely to be the BPEO for most low level<br />

decommissioning wastes of the type proposed for ENRMF. Hence, BPM for<br />

such an option focuses on the design of the facility, whether it meets modern<br />

standards and whether any further straightforward improvements are feasible.<br />

11.2.7 The current state of the wastes on the various nuclear sites, whilst adequately<br />

controlled, is unarguably less satisfactory and less sustainable than final<br />

disposal. If the waste is not disposed to engineered facilities it will remain in<br />

above ground stores or in contaminated land areas and will present a higher risk<br />

to future generations. The proposed option represents a net reduction in risk<br />

from the current situation.<br />

11.2.8 It is submitted that use of a modern standard hazardous waste landfill that has<br />

been designed and implemented using BAT under recent legislative guidance<br />

represents BPM for the disposal of LLW of the type proposed for ENRMF. The<br />

reasoning is that the LLW has the same chemical properties whilst being no more<br />

mobile and are generally less reactive than the hazardous wastes for which the<br />

landfill was designed and that the landfill was designed in such a way as to<br />

prevent harm to humans and the environment. If a new specialist landfill were<br />

designed for the LLW of the type proposed for ENRMF it is unlikely to use<br />

engineering features and standards beyond those currently used to define BAT<br />

for modern hazardous waste landfills.<br />

11.2.9 The risk assessments in this application support the case that the existing landfill<br />

design will prevent harm arising from the LLW to an appropriate risk standard.<br />

11.2.10Further limitations have been proposed on the disposal that are additional to the<br />

BAT features of the existing landfill and these are described throughout this<br />

application and in particular in section 5, including :<br />

Wastes will only be accepted for disposal if the source site (in the case of<br />

a nuclear industry site) demonstrates that the option is BPEO and that<br />

BPM has been used to apply the waste hierarchy and to characterise the<br />

waste.<br />

The radiological capacity of the landfill has been back calculated to give a<br />

design risk target under the most restrictive future scenarios of

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!