| Editorial
What a hectic few months
since the last issue of Safe Energy. The arguments over the government’s
Energy Review have been played out in the media with rumours of
a new nuclear programme filling our newspapers. The Government
has finally released its nuclear waste management consultation
and the Environment Agency consultation on its review of Sellafield
discharges has ended. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth took
the Government to court over its approval of the Sellafield MOX
Plant, and the Irish Government took the UK to the International
Law of the Sea Tribunal in Hamburg. The Government also announced
plans to set up a Liabilities Management Authority which will
control most of BNFL and the UKAEA’s assets and liabilities.
And, of course, in the midst of all this were the tragic events
of September 11th which will change the nature of the nuclear
debate irrevocably.
As a result of all
this, not only is this issue late, but unfortunately it will not
be as comprehensive as I would have liked. There will be no analysis
of the submissions to the Energy Review by British Nuclear Fuels
and British Energy. Also worthy of a report would have been the
submission by the Scottish Executive, which was far from enthusiastic
about new nuclear build. The submission by the Energy Saving Trust
, Carbon Trust and Greenpeace are also worth a look. All these
submissions are available on the Cabinet Office website:-
http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2001/energy/energyscope.shtm
There have been hundreds
of reports about the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to terrorist
attack, especially reprocessing facilities where the tanks of
liquid high-level waste are particularly vulnerable. It is estimated
that a release of 50% of the caesium in the Sellafield High Level
Waste Tanks would result in an accident 44 times worse than Chernobyl.
International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman, David Kyd, said
"If you postulate the risk of a jumbo jet full of fuel, it
is clear that their design was not conceived to withstand such
an impact,"
If you would like to
see the Greenpeace submission to the Environment Agency consultation
on Sellafield discharges, drop me an e-mail. Also worth printing
off and keeping on your bookshelf is the report by WISE Paris
on “The Possible Toxic Effects from Nuclear Reprocessing
Plants at Sellafield (UK) and Cap de la Hague (France)” for
the Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Programme
of the European Parliament. You should be able to find this on
the WISE website www.wise-paris.org If you have difficulty, let
me know and I can e-mail you a pdf file.
1. Energy
Review approaches a conclusion
In an exclusive report
(Blair report to veto more nuclear plants), the Sunday Herald
reported on 9th Dec 2001, that the Prime Minister's Performance
and Innovation Unit (PIU), which is conducting the Energy Review,
will report that the UK can meet its energy needs and cut pollution
without building any new nuclear stations. Tony Blair's advisers
will reject the nuclear power industry’s shopping list of
subsidies for up to 15 new power stations.
The PIU is rapidly
moving towards a conclusion that renewables, combined heat and
power and conservation, alongside a strong role for gas, can take
the UK energy economy forward successfully over the next 20 years
while meeting economic, security and sustainability criteria.
This is a major setback for the pro- nuclear energy minister Brian
Wilson who has been chairing the review. He has been fighting
a rearguard action in support of nuclear power, which has resulted
in private clashes with experts on the review team.
In public Wilson is
now beginning to distance himself from the review, warning the
nuclear industry last week not to expect too much from it. The
only concession he has won is that nuclear stations should be
exempt from the climate change levy as they do not produce the
pollution that causes global warming.
But this will not be
enough to save nuclear power, which is more expensive than other
forms of generation because of the high costs of dealing with
radioactive waste. The only role for new reactors envisaged by
the PIU team is as an insurance if the planned expansion of renewable
energy falters.
The New Scientist,
(15 December) which also reported on the Energy Review: “If
the government accepts its recommendations, Britain will become
one of the most environmentally friendly energy producers in the
world … The review paints a picture of an energy policy that
could set an example to the world. When it is delivered to Prime
Minister Tony Blair later this month, he should seize the opportunity
with both hands. It is the nearest thing yet to his cherished
notion of the green industrial revolution”.
New Scientist reported
that the PIU wants the cost of insuring against accidents and
disposing of radioactive waste to be borne by the nuclear industry
rather than the government.
The Herald on Sunday
continues…..
For months newspapers
across the land have been reporting that the government's energy
review will 'pave the way' for up to 15 new nuclear power stations,
two or three of which could be destined for Scotland. This may
be what the nuclear industry and its ministerial cheer-leaders
want, but it bears no resemblance to what the long awaited review
initiated by Prime Minister Tony Blair will actually say. The
review, which is being finalised by the Cabinet's Performance
And Innovation Unit (PIU) this week, will show that it is possible
to meet the UK's energy needs and cut its climate-wrecking carbon
pollution by improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable
energy from the wind, waves and tides.
This is cheaper, easier
and more publicly acceptable than building new nuclear reactors.
The review has identified two scenarios which could meet the target
of cutting carbon emissions by 60% over the next 50 years recommended
by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. One -- 'global
sustainability' -- assumes an annual growth rate of 2% and involves
increased energy efficiency, combined heat and power stations
and renewable sources providing 30% of electricity needs. The
other -- 'local stewardship' -- assumes an annual growth of 1%,
a 20% contribution from renewables and no increase in the use
of private cars. Neither scenario envisages building any new nuclear
power stations. Their only role accorded by the PIU review is
as a back-up, with methods of containing carbon emissions from
fossil fuels known as 'sequestration', in case something goes
wrong with plans to increase reliance on renewable energy sources.
'Our overall conclusion
for the new capacity in the electricity supply sector by 2020
is that it can best be delivered, consistent with all energy policy
objectives, using energy efficiency, combined heat and power and
renewable energy, provided that the last of these can be built
at acceptable cost,' one PIU study has concluded. Insiders say
that the review will suggest that techniques for removing carbon
emissions for coal should be tested in a pilot plant. A permanent
sustainable energy policy unit within government will also be
proposed.
As was widely predicted,
PIU will favour removing nuclear generation from the climate change
levy, but on its own this will not be enough to make new reactors
economic enough to build. The power company British Energy estimates
that this would only be worth £2 million a year, and has
said that it requires other public subsidies and financial changes
before it will invest in a new nuclear plant. The review will
not recommend any other subsidies. Cost estimates by PIU experts
suggest that nuclear power, at 3-4.5p per unit of electricity,
is more expensive than onshore wind power at 1.5-2.4p per unit,
combined heat and power at 1.6-2.4p and gas generation at 1.8-2.1p.
The PIU has come to
its conclusions despite the fact that its review is chaired by
Brian Wilson, the energy minister who has never made a secret
of his enthusiasm for nuclear electricity. He is the MP for Cunninghame
North which includes the Hunterston nuclear power station on the
Clyde coast. Sources have told the Sunday Herald that Wilson has
clashed with the PIU's expert advisers and demanded that a draft
be rewritten so that it was less negative about nuclear power.
Last week he warned the nuclear industry not to expect too much
from the review . 'Supposing the PIU recommended acceptance of
the nuclear industry's entire shopping list, it would not guarantee
the building of a single new nuclear station,' he said.
Senior executives of
the nuclear industry have made clear that they regarded the review
as make-or-break time. 'It is no exaggeration to say that British
Nuclear Fuels and nuclear power are at the cross- roads,' said
BNFL's chairman, Hugh Collum. 'Ahead of us lies either a long
managed decline or a period of renewed growth.' The PIU report,
which is expected to be published early in the new year, will
not embody the government's view. It will only be a recommendation
to the government.
The policy to pursue
will be decided by the Cabinet, after the issue has been considered
by its energy sub-committee chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister
John Prescott. There will also be a public consultation . Environmental
groups will urge the Cabinet to abide by the PIU's nuclear-free
scenarios. For once they will have an ally in the Scottish Executive,
whose support for renewables and opposition to new nuclear stations
is said to have been influential in the PIU's deliberations.
But even if Blair were
to decide to subsidise the building of a few nuclear reactors,
it is very unlikely that any of them would end up in Scotland.
Aside from the huge potential for wind, wave and tidal energy
north of the Border, senior Scottish ministers have made it clear
that they are unwilling to accept new nuclear stations while the
problem of disposing of the radioactive waste they would create
remains unsolved.
The Sunday Herald (9th
December) also reported on a new study which shows that Scotland
can spearhead the clean, green revolution.
The gigantic potential
of power from the wind, waves and tides was given an unprecedented
boost by the Scottish Executive when environment and rural development
minister Ross Finnie published the first full assessment of the
contribution that renewable sources could practically make on
10th December. The results, which have taken aback even die-hard
renewable enthusiasts, are revolutionary. Thousands of wind turbines
on land and at sea, wave power machines and underwater tidal generators
could provide 10 times more electricity than Scotland needs.
The study, by energy
consultants Garrad Hassan, concludes that renewables in Scotland
could produce a massive 60 gigawatts of power, three quarters
of the installed generating capacity of the UK as a whole. This
could be done taking into account all the technical and economic
barriers and without damaging any scenic or nature conservation
areas.
Environmentalists say
the potential is 'staggering' and shows how Scotland's renewable
energy capacity has been seriously underestimated in the past.
It also kills off the hopes harboured by the power company British
Energy of building new reactors to replace those at Hunterston
in Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian. 'This report sounds the
death knell for nuclear new-build in Scotland,' said Kevin Dunion,
chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. 'Environmentally
nuclear plants cannot compete, for although they produce no carbon
dioxide emissions in generation, they leave a legacy of radioactive
wastes which have to be safely contained for thousands of years.'
The study paves the
way for a historic sea change in energy policy that should give
Scotland a chance to lead the world in developing the technologies
for tapping the awesome power of nature. Ross Finnie, the minister
for environment and rural development regards it as 'breathtaking'.
And according to Friends of the Earth Scotland, the economic benefits
for rural areas will be enormous.
Traditional power sources
such as coal, oil, gas and nuclear fission either produce pollution
that wrecks the climate or dangerous radioactive waste. The report
shows that these dirty old technologies can be confined to history.
The report takes account of the environmental, planning and technical
constraints, and works out the total resources that will be available
in 2010 for less than seven pence per unit of electricity. The
simplest and cheapest option is onshore wind power, which could
provide 11.5 gigawatts of electricity for less than three pence
per unit. This is nearly twice Scotland's peak demand and is 11
times more than the power needed to meet the Executive's target
of 18% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Power from
wind on land is now much cheaper than power from coal, oil or
nuclear stations. Only gas, at around two pence per unit, can
compete.
Fulfilling the entire
potential for onshore wind would mean erecting at least 4000 turbines
over 2% of Scotland. This assumes that none would be built on
the 70% of land that is protected because of its scenic beauty
or its wildlife and natural habitats. However, that would rule
out the site initially earmarked for one of the world's largest
wind farms on Lewis. The Sunday Herald revealed last week that
the 600-megawatt development due to be announced by British Energy
and AMEC could damage an environmentally important peat bog. Two
other farms are proposed: one by Scottish Power at Eaglesham Moor
south of Glasgow and another by Scottish and Southern Energy near
Girvan in South Ayrshire. The only problem identified by the new
study is Ministry of Defence opposition to wind turbines in areas
used by low-flying military jets. The MoD fears turbines could
increase the risk of accidents.
The study says that
up to 25 gigawatts of electricity could be produced by 8000 or
more wind turbines stationed on platforms out at sea, and the
potential contribution from wave power is 14 gigawatts. Although
it is at an earlier stage and is more expensive than wind power,
there are at least three different wave power machines under development.
Turbines installed underwater could extract up to 7.5 gigawatts
of electricity. A second report to be released by the Executive
tomorrow shows that the 18% renewables target can be achieved
using the existing electricity grid, though a £195m upgrade
will be needed.
Simon Pepper, director
of the World Wildlife Fund Scotland, said: 'At last here it is
in black and white: a renewable energy future for Scotland, confirming
for all that the potential is there if we choose to make something
of it. One of the greatest opportunities this highlights is the
potential for job creation and investment in manufacturing and
engineering. It could be an economic treasure chest for the people
of Scotland.'
For the two Scottish
Executive reports see www.scotland.gov.uk
But Blair still wants
UK to keep nuclear power, according to the Independent on Sunday
(16th December).
The paper reported
that Tony Blair will order the Government to keep open the option
of building a new generation of nuclear power stations, despite
the recommendations of the PIU report. He and Energy minister
Brian Wilson are determined not to close down nuclear energy in
Britain, and will draw on passages in the PIU report that support
this.
Environmentalists,
citing selective leaks from the report, claimed last week that
it condemned nuclear power, and would finish off the industry
in Britain. In fact it is more balanced and says that "policy
should keep the nuclear option open". But it recognises that,
at present at least, nuclear power plants are likely to be too
expensive to be built. The report has been the subject of a fierce
battle behind the scenes between the pro-nuclear Mr Wilson, who
chaired an advisory group of ministers, and critics Peter Hain,
the Foreign Office minister, and Michael Meacher, the Environment
minister.
It also appears to
have been heavily modified by officials in its final stages, to
soften its approach on nuclear power and to make its emphasis
less green. Earlier drafts stressed that protecting the environment
should be the overriding principle. But the report now suggests
that "economic and social objectives" could be given
equal weight. Nevertheless, the report emphasises the urgency
of adopting "a radical agenda to enable the UK to put itself
on the path to a low-carbon economy" – minimising the
burning of fossil fuels which emit carbon dioxide, the main cause
of global warming.
It pushes for a massive
increase in electricity from renewable sources such as wind, sun
and waves, saying that, as a target, these should provide a fifth
of all power generated in Britain by the year 2020. This is lower
than a 30 per cent target earlier considered by the unit, which
reports to the Cabinet Office, but would still represent an eightfold
increase over the proportion now generated in this way.
But it tacitly acknowledges
that the Government has not made enough progress towards its present
target of generating 10 per cent of energy from renewable sources
by 2010. It makes recommendations on removing obstacles, including
"the working of the planning system", which have held
up progress. The report also calls for a "step change in
the nation's energy efficiency". Energy conservation in homes
should be increased by 40 per cent by 2020, "approximately
double the existing rate of improvement". This in turn, would
help combat fuel poverty.
When the review was
set up under Mr Wilson's leadership, nuclear companies believed
that its report would revive their fortunes. British Energy and
British Nuclear Fuels, which run the UK's 15 nuclear power stations,
have been pressing to build new reactors as the present ones close.
The report takes an even-handed approach. It says new reactors
should get the same incentives as other sources of power that
do not emit carbon dioxide. But it also suggests that the industry
should also meet the costs of waste disposal and reactor decommissioning
– almost certain to make it uneconomic.
The report says that
nuclear power is likely to be too costly for many years to come,
and points out that no country has ever chosen to build reactors
under free-market conditions. It calls for the development of
cheaper reactors that produce less waste. The Prime Minister,
however, is said to be committed to retaining nuclear power as
an insurance policy against the threat of oil or gas imports being
cut off in the future by wars in the Middle East. The PIU report
says "Policy should keep the nuclear option open while ensuring
that the energy system can respond flexibly to a new environment
... The Department of Trade and Industry should take the necessary
action to keep open the nuclear option."
UK overhaul of major
infrastructure decisions Environment Daily 1126, 18/12/01
A proposal to speed up decision-making for major infrastructure
plans was announced yesterday by the UK government. It says that
the draft rules would transform the existing "cumbersome"
approvals process while
offering greater democratic accountability. The Confederation
of British industry (CBI) welcomed the proposals, saying that
they would make the country more competitive. However Friends
of the Earth (FoE) was "appalled," complaining that
the new rules would "limit citizens' right to object".
See consultation paper
http://www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/consult/majinfra/pdf/infostruc.pdf,
plus FoE press release http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2001/20011217162640.html
Back in August (28th),
Polly Toynbee, writing in the Guardian suggested some ways to
frustrate Blair’s nuclear ambitions.
It is not easy to be
good. It usually requires time, money, effort, patience, kindness
or other qualities in sporadic supply. So here is a chance to
be good at absolutely no cost to yourself in time or money - easy
virtue just one quick phone call away. Greenpeace has joined up
with npower to launch Juice, a new, green electricity supply that
for the first time costs exactly the same as ordinary electricity
supplies. Juice is building new wind power. Not only is the price
for the first time competitive, but the more subscribers sign
up, the more new wind power stations will be built by npower.
(Other green suppliers use existing old hydro-electric stations,
with no promise to build more.) The first new 30-turbine wind
power station is planned for a site off the north Wales coast,
providing electricity for the first 50,000 subscribers. It will
be four miles offshore, inaudible and virtually invisible. Until
it is built, subscribers will get green supplies from existing
renewable sources. Once more than 50,000 sign up, another site
will be developed, and so on. Phone 0800 316 2610 or click to
www.npower.com/juice for instant connection - and instant moral
satisfaction, with no cost and no sweat. (They do the change-over
from your present supplier.)
2.
Sellafield MOX Plant struggles onwards
As reported in Safe
Energy 21 a legal challenge by Friends of the Earth forced the
Government to release the economic analysis by consultants, Arthur
D Little, for a 5th round of Public Consultation. That consultation
ended on 24 August 2001.
In a joint Press Release
dated 31st August, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace said the
report was fundamentally flawed. In a detailed critique of the
ADL report the two environmental groups said ADL had failed to
understand key aspects of the nuclear industry or to appreciate
the conditions prevailing in the potential client countries that
currently have plutonium stored at Sellafield.
Consequently, ADL's
estimate that running SMP might net around £200M of revenue,
is fundamentally flawed and cannot be relied upon by Ministers
in deciding upon the SMP. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace
along with public interest groups in Japan and elsewhere are all
calling on the Government to reject BNFL's application.
The specific failings
of the ADL report include:
The failure to understand
the situation in Japan where, because of strong adverse public
and political opinion, there is an effective moratorium on signing
MOX contracts and on loading MOX fuel into reactors. The 1999
Tokaimura accident in which two workers were killed; the 2000
scandal involving the falsification of BNFL safety data; and the
May 2001 local referendum result against MOX in Kariwa have all
influenced opinion increasingly against nuclear power in general
and against MOX in particular. This situation is highly unlikely
to change in the time frames suggested by ADL and may not change
at all;
The failure to consider
the additional costs of sea transport particularly in respect
of Japan which represents a significant additional disincentive
for potential customers; The failure to appreciate that MOX fuel
is more expensive than conventional nuclear fuel (using just uranium)
and is only being considered because BNFL and its clients need
to find a use for the plutonium that accumulates at Sellafield
as a result of reprocessing;
The failure to recognise
that safer and less expensive alternatives for managing plutonium
are available, in particular, immobilisation in glass or ceramic.
Market pressures are in general already pushing nuclear generators
away from reprocessing into the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel
and in particular, for separated plutonium, towards immobilisation;
The apparent failure
to apply the appropriate rates for the cost of capital and for
discounting post-operational liabilities, the combined effect
of which is to overvalue the plant's business case by an estimated
£74million;
The failure to interview
MOX specialists outside the nuclear industry, including the failure
to respond to written questions and the failure to respond to
earlier submissions.
The result is that,
by only discussing MOX with its supporters, ADL's judgements about
future business risks are grossly simplified and over optimistic;
and finally, the failure to include "sunk costs" of
£473M already spent on constructing and preparing SMP. This
has the effect of skewing the 'justification' test required under
law. Including "sunk costs"
clearly demonstrates that SMP will make a massive loss.
Taking all factors
into account and using realistic assumptions about future risks,
the re-evaluation of SMP's current net value is around zero. In
other words, the revenue from a few small contracts might not
even cover the costs of running and then dismantling a radioactively
contaminated plant.
Mark Johnston, Energy
Campaigner at Friends of the Earth said: "The ADL report
has been a waste of money. It is misinformed and ill judged in
so many areas that it couldn’t be used as the basis of an
informed decision by Ministers in favour of SMP. We believe the
only lawful course of action now available to the Government is
to reject BNFL's application. To do otherwise would risk further
legal challenges in the courts."
Pete Roche, Nuclear
Campaigner at Greenpeace said: "Plutonium is a deadly fissile
material that carries risks over time scales beyond our imagination.
It's time the Government started acting responsibly by taking
the steps that will minimise the huge risks and costs to society
in the future."
The analysis was undertaken
by Mike Sadnicki, a consultant in Operational Research and economic
analysis. Mr Sadnicki is also a member of the UK Radioactive Waste
Management Advisory Committee which advises the Government on
nuclear issues. He was in this instance acting in a personal capacity.
His report is available from FOE on request.
SMP Go-ahead delay
The Government was originally expected to give SMP the go-ahead
on September 12th. It was rumoured that they hoped to bury the
news on the day the Tory Party chose its new leader. Events in
Washington and New York, however, delayed the announcement.
On 20 September, BBC On-Line reported that Security at SMP was
to be reviewed.
“The security
of a new nuclear recycling plant at Sellafield will be considered
in the light of fears about international terrorism. Ministers
want to learn more about the security implications of the mixed
oxide fuel (Mox) plant in Cumbria following the terrorist attacks
on America. But a Defra spokesman said that a decision on the
plant's opening had not been held up by last week's events in
New York and Washington. It had been anticipated that a decision
might be taken this week on the controversial site. Concern has
been raised about the possible risks associated with moving spent
nuclear fuel, such as uranium and plutonium, from customers in
Germany and Japan, and then in exporting the Mox fuel.
Dr Frank Barnaby, of
the Oxford Research Group, told BBC Radio4's Today programme:
"If they can organise to capture four commercial airlines
and fly them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, then
they can certainly capture a ship on the high seas I would have
thought. "And the concern is the plutonium is easily separated
chemically from the uranium and that plutonium could then be used
to make a nuclear explosion, a nuclear weapon. If you are producing
and using Mox and exporting it then you are significantly increasing
the risk of nuclear terrorism," he said.
BBC correspondent Tom
Fielden said that defence experts had told him that the American
terrorist attack had changed the nature of a likely risk. It was
now not just merely a question of whether terrorists wanted to
steal the nuclear fuel but whether they were prepared to die to
blow it up, he said. But he added that the decision on whether
to open the plant five years after it was completed also depended
on whether it would be commercially viable. As soon as it was
switched on it would be contaminated with nuclear materials and
would incur the full cost of decommissioning if it were not to
make a profit. A Defra spokesman told BBC News Online that there
was no strict timetable for when a decision would be made on the
opening of the new plant. "It is not true to say that the
decision has been held up by last week's events," he said.
"An assessment of terrorism will be included but a number
of issues are being looked into," he said.
Nuclear plant gets
go-ahead 3 October, 2001, BBC On-Line
Sellafield's new mixed oxide (mox) plant has been given the commercial
go-ahead despite environmentalists' protests. They say the decision
is unlawful and fear that the plant will become a target for terrorists.
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett's decision on the £460m
fuel fabrication plant in Cumbria will secure its immediate future.
The nuclear industry believes that recycling the used fuel and
turning it into mox can help reduce the world's growing stockpile
of plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to humankind.
The plant was completed in 1996, but permission for commercial
operation was withheld because of concerns over finances and data
falsification.
But critics fear in
the wake of the US atrocities terrorists may attempt to intercept
or blow up shipments. They believe it would be safer to leave
the plutonium in spent fuel and keep it in storage tanks, rather
than transport it around the world with the potential for an accident.
But Norman Askew, chief
executive of British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), the site's
operators, expressed delighted at the announcement of the news
which will be crucial to the future of the company.
The approval was announced
on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
website and confirmed by the Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett,
who is in Brighton for the Labour Party conference. Mrs Beckett
said she and the Health Secretary Alan Milburn thought the manufacture
of Mox fuel "is justified" in line with European Community
law.
Mr Askew said: "I'm
delighted for the people at BNFL who've put in a lot of work of
the years to get us to this point, and I'm delighted for our customers,"
he told the BBC. "It's very good news for them because they've
supported through this period and are ready to do business with
us."
The green lobby argues that nuclear power has no future - it accuses
Sellafield of polluting the Irish Sea - and that Mox creates new
environmental and security risks. Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace
slammed Wednesday's decision, claiming it was "unlawful".
Greenpeace said it was dangerously irresponsible to launch an
expansion of the international plutonium trade when the threat
from terrorists was still unknown and out of control.
Charles Secrett, director
of Friends of the Earth, said the decision beggared belief. "Yesterday
Tony Blair talked of the need for international action to build
a safer global community. Today his government does the reverse.
This isn't joined-up government. It's unhinged government."
Green Party MEP Nuala
Ahern from Leinster, Ireland, denounced the decision as "inviting
terrorists to go nuclear. The centre of this insanity is Sellafield,
from where hundreds of shipments of the deadly nuclear explosive
plutonium are about to be sent thousands of miles across the high
seas," she said. "We are now all in grave danger from
radiological sabotage, or an attack on shipments from Sellafield.
Producing mox at Sellafield will make the world a less safe place."
Mark Johnston, (now at Greenpeace) said "The government will
have to defend this decision in the High Court"
Government in Court
The Government did
indeed end up defending their decision in the High Court on 8th
November. In a joint legal action by Greenpeace and Friends of
the Earth to prevent the controversial new Sellafield plutonium
plant from being opened, High Court Judge Mr Justice Collins judicially
reviewed the Government's recent decision to allow BNFL to begin
operation of the MOX fuel plant at Sellafield.
Lawyers representing Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace said
that Government's decision is unlawful because state-owned BNFL
cannot demonstrate an economic justification for the plant and
there is insufficient evidence that potential customers, such
as the Japanese, will materialise. Under EU law, the Government
must be able to show - amongst other things - that the economic
benefits of the plant outweigh the health and environmental detriments.
Greenpeace Executive
Director Stephen Tindale said,
"The MOX plant
is not only an environmental threat and a potential terrorist
target but simply does not make business sense. Taxpayers will
have to bear the brunt of any failure to secure customers for
a nuclear fuel that is more expensive and dangerous to use than
the alternatives. BNFL is already set to lose £260 million
on the building costs of this
plant alone - to waste any more public money would be frankly
obscene."
Executive Director
of Friends of the Earth, Charles Secrett said
"The Government
has fiddled the figures to try and justify giving the go-ahead
to this nuclear monstrosity. The MOX plant doesn't make economic
or environmental sense. It should be consigned to the dustbin
of history where it belongs. Instead of putting its weight behind
outdated and expensive technology, the Government should champion
the
cause of safe, clean and green renewable energy."
The MOX plant, completed
in 1996, is intended to turn plutonium and uranium into usable
fuel for overseas nuclear reactors but has not begun operations.
The commercial go-ahead for the plant was withheld following both
financial concerns, and a scandal in 1999 in which BNFL workers
falsified safety data for the new MOX fuel pellets. BNFL's reputation
was damaged world-wide, especially in Japan which was about to
load a trial batch of the fuel into a reactor. Japanese utilities
have so far refused to sign any MOX contracts with BNFL.
An assessment conducted
for the Government this spring by consultants prior to its decision
to give the go-ahead forecast that the MOX plant would earn £200
million. However, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace lawyers
will argue that as the cost of building the plant was £470
million, this would mean an overall financial loss. In addition,
this predicted £200m income relies on customers that do
not exist. BNFL only has contracts for less than 10% of the business
it hopes to attract and the company has also promoted contracts
as 'firm' that are far from definite (2). The lack of any Japanese
contracts is striking because BNFL's Executive Director Norman
Askew said in an interview last year that "Without Japanese
orders we cannot justify opening the MOX plant."
Beyond the legal issues
raised in the judicial review proceedings, Greenpeace and Friends
of the Earth also believe that the Government's decision is dangerously
irresponsible and could put terrorists closer to obtaining nuclear
materials. The MOX plant will produce fuel for export, which will
mean that the material will have to be transported in ships or
even planes to reach its final destination. Not only is there
a risk of an accident, which would be devastating for many of
the small island states en-route, who are heavily dependent on
tourism, agriculture and fishing, but there are also concerns
over attacks on shipments.
Plutonium, which makes
up part of the MOX fuel is one of the most dangerous materials
in the world. As little as 4kg is required to make a nuclear bomb.
Far less is required to make a 'dirty bomb' – conventional
explosive added to plutonium so it causes widespread contamination
on detonation. Sellafield itself may also be a terrorist target
because of the large quantities of plutonium stored there.
The BBC’s On-Line
report (8th November) of the first day in the High Court quoted
the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth QC, Lord Lester, who said
that "They seek to dilute the [economic] test into something
rubbery and elusive which doesn't amount to an effective test
at all”. Construction costs of £470m had been "disregarded"
in assessing whether the scheme could be economically justified,
Lord Lester QC argued. If they had been properly taken into account
the scheme would show an overall financial loss. Lord Lester said
the case was urgent because British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) wished
to take "irreversible implementation steps" for the
MOX plant as early as 20 December this year.
Philip Sales, appearing
for the secretaries of state for environment and health, said
if the court ruled against the government, the mox scheme would
have to be reconsidered.
Lord Lester said at
the heart of the case was the EU Basic Safety Standards Directive.
The directive imposes a duty on national governments to apply
a test on all new types of exposure to ionising radiation. It
rules they must be justified because their economic, social or
other benefits outweighed the health detriments they might cause.
If there was no "net benefit", then the radiation-producing
practice was not to be adopted.
Government ministers
were arguing that the scheme was justified because it would provide
"significant economic benefits" and had a "net
present value of £216 million". But the capital cost
of building the mox plant, which amounted to £470 million
in June this year, had been disregarded, even though the cost
was plainly relevant to assessing the benefits.
Lord Lester argued
the point "matters enormously". The "net benefit"
claimed by the government for mox would "disappear"
if the £470 million were included. Overall, the costs outweighed
the benefit "very substantially". The mox plant, which
turns "spent" plutonium and uranium into usable fuel,
was completed by Sellafield's owners BNFL in 1996.
High Court Ruling
Justice Collins ruled
on 15th November that the Government's recent decision to give
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd the go-ahead for the MOX plant at Sellafield
was not unlawful under European law. In a controversial judgment,
Mr Justice Collins ruled that the costs of setting up a new nuclear
plant should not be weighed in the balance of economic costs and
benefits when deciding whether any nuclear practice is economically
justified. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth will consider whether
to appeal Mr Justice Collins' decision.
The controversial MOX
plant is still the subject of three further legal challenges;
two separate actions have been brought by the Irish Government
arguing, under one of them, that the MOX plant will break international
laws on sea pollution; a third action has been brought by Irish
MEP, Nuala Ahern. One of Ireland's challenges will be heard before
a tribunal of 21 judges in Hamburg next week. Norway is also said
to be considering legal action.
Charles Secrett, Executive
Director of Friends of the Earth said, "Today's judgment
allows the Government to ignore plant construction costs when
deciding whether a nuclear project is justified. In this land
of fantasy economics the Government can fiddle the figures until
it gets the result it wants. Despite this bitter blow the campaign
against MOX continues. We owe it to ourselves and future generations
to do what we can to stop this nuclear madness from proceeding."
Stephen Tindale, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK said, "While
today's decision is disappointing, our fight to stop the MOX plant
from opening is not over. BNFL's order book is virtually empty;
the plant poses a substantial risk as a terrorist target and producer
of bomb-making materials, and faces three more legal challenges.
Tony Blair was right when he highlighted the threats from international
terrorism and nuclear proliferation in his speech to the Labour
Party Conference. It's time his actions matched his words and
his Government stopped allowing activities that will arm the terrorists
of tomorrow."
Appeal
Green groups renew bid to stop UK nuke fuel plant (Reuters) November
28, 2001
LONDON - Two top environmental
groups have renewed a legal bid to stop Britain opening a controversial
472 million pound ($665.2 million) nuclear fuel manufacturing
plant. Today's bid comes a week after Ireland argued for a United
Nations tribunal to issue injunctions to prevent the start of
operations at the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel plant at Sellafield and
to stop ships transporting nuclear material to and from it. Just
12 days after their initial efforts were defeated in London's
High Court, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have gone to the
Court of Appeal where they are asking for the decision to be overturned.
The swift move to an appeal hearing is in response to plans by
state-owned British Nuclear Fuels, the site's operator, to start
up the plant next month.
Earlier this month
the groups challenged Britain's decision to approve the start-up
of operations at the plant, arguing it was unlawful because significant
economic justification for the plant, as required by EU law, was
not evident. They said the government could not demonstrate an
economic justification because the construction cost of the Sellafield
MOX Plant (SMP) was not taken into account by a government-commissioned
study which said the plant would deliver net financial benefits
of 216 million pounds ($311 million).
A British judge ruled
the government had acted within the law when granting start-up
approval earlier this year. Now the groups are asking the Court
of Appeal to rule that Britain was wrong to approve the production
of the MOX fuel.
The High Court judge
in the decision under challenge said manufacture of MOX by BNFL
at Sellafield was "the only feasible option now and in the
foreseeable future," adding that the cost of setting up such
a plant could not be set against the economic benefits.
BNFL has said it aims to get the plant operational in late December,
pending a decision by the U.N. body and the outcome of an appeal
lauched by the green groups.
Appeal Result
The result of the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Appeal was
a partial victory. What it doesn't say in the FT piece below is
that the Court said it was a very important case of exceptional
public interest especially re public health. Hence they refused
to give the Government or BNFL their costs (which is very good
news for the NGOs), although they still have to pay the Government's
costs for the first Court Case - but BNFL won't get a penny.
Environmentalists lose
appeal against opening of Mox plant By Matthew Jones
Financial Times December 7 2001
Environmentalists on
Friday lost their appeal against the opening of a controversial
nuclear fuel recycling plant in Cumbria, northwest England. Friends
of the Earth and Greenpeace had urged the English Court of Appeal
to overturn a High Court ruling last month that UK ministers had
made "no error in law" in approving the Sellafield Mox
Plant, which combines reprocessed plutonium with uranium. But
Lords Justices Simon Brown, Waller and Dyson unanimously rejected
the appeal at a hearing in London, saying the government was "entitled
to decide these cases in the real world".
British Nuclear Fuels,
which owns the Mox plant, said it was delighted with the verdict.
"This supports our position that the plant is viable and
means we can now get on with the job of commissioning it later
this month," said an official. Greenpeace and Friends of
the Earth argued that ministers took a distorted view of the economics
of the plant by writing off its £470m ($671.5m) build cost.
Under European Union law the economic, social and other benefits
of new atomic investments have to be demonstrated before they
can be given the go-ahead.
The groups claimed
a partial victory because future nuclear projects in Britain will
have to take account of the construction and other capital costs
before they are approved. "The capital costs inherent in
a new type of practice...are indeed a cost of the practice and
relevant, therefore, when evaluating the overall economic benefit,”
said Lord Justice Simon Brown.
Ireland is separately
arguing in two international legal actions that the plant could
pollute the Irish Sea and that the risk of a terrorist attack
on the plant or shipment of Mox from it presents an unacceptable
risk to the environment. Dublin earlier this week warned that
relations between Ireland and Britain could sour after it failed
to win an injunction preventing BNFL from commissioning the plant
on December 20. Its legal actions, under United Nations maritime
law and through the Ospar Convention, which is designed to protect
marine life in the northeast Atlantic, could still succeed in
closing the plant down once commissioning has begun.
Joe Jacob, Irish minister
responsible for nuclear safety, also said on Monday he was considering
a challenge before the European Court of Justice on the UK's decision
that the plant is economically justified. Decommissioning costs
for the plant would be millions of pounds higher if it had to
be closed after plutonium had been introduced to it.
Irish Anger
Ireland also asked
the International Law of the Sea Tribunal in Hamburg to order
an immediate suspension of the plant's authorisation and international
transports pending the Tribunal's decision. Norway is considering
legal action. Norway already suffers radioactive pollution of
its fish shellfish and lobsters. Both countries are also concerned
about any potential terrorist threat. See www.itlos.org
Irish Times, Saturday,
November 10, 2001 Government applies for Sellafield injunction
By Christine Newman and Rachel Donnelly
The (Irish) Government has filed an application with an international
tribunal for an injunction to stop the operation of the MOX plant
at Sellafield. At the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea, which sits in Hamburg, Government lawyers also applied to
stop international movements in and around the Irish Sea of radioactive
materials associated with the operation of the MOX (mixed oxide)
nuclear plant. The Government is claiming the UK violated the
1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
In a statement yesterday,
Mr Joe Jacob, the Minister with responsibility for nuclear safety,
said the action followed the unwillingness of the UK to suspend
the authorisation of the MOX plant, as Ireland had requested when
it initiated these international legal proceedings on October
25th.
It was expected BNFL
would start operations at the plant around December 20th. The
21 judges of the tribunal can order a binding injunction to prevent
the start-up of the plant. The tribunal will now decide on the
procedure and timetable to be followed.
Mr Jacob said it was
likely there would be oral hearings in Hamburg, but these were
not expected to open before November 19th. Mr Jacob said that
with its request for provisional measures, Ireland had designated
ambassador Alberto Szekely as ad-hoc judge at the tribunal. Ambassador
Szekely was a Mexican national who participated in the negotiations
of the 1982 UN convention and was a former member of the UN International
Law Commission, the Minister said.
In the Hamburg courtroom on 20th November, according to the Irish
Independent, Britain's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, led a
hard-hitting defence of his government that made no concessions
whatsoever to Irish fears over the plant's operations. Lord Goldsmith
and his legal team poured scorn on the Irish allegation that the
Court of Sea was entitled to hear the case, arguing it fell outside
its jurisdiction. Britain further alleged that the oral presentation
from the attorney general, Michael McDowell, and his team of Irish,
British and Indian lawyers and academics had failed to prove that
their concerns were linked to the MOX plant and not the existing
Thorpe reprocessing centre. "This is part of the wider war
against Sellafield," Lord Goldsmith told the court. "Ireland
has a long-standing objection to existing nuclear energy operations."
He warned that any delay in the start up of the MOX operations
could cost thousands of jobs and would result in economic losses
running to hundreds of millions of pounds. His team also hotly
disputed Irish statistics about the maritime damage from radioactive
discharges insisting that these would be "infinitesimal".
In the closing comments,
the Irish team, led by Eoghan Fitzsimons, urged the court to ignore
British legal arguments which they claimed were largely irrelevant.
The action was not just about human health but the broader maritime
impact for the Irish Sea, which is the most radioactive in the
world, Mr Fitzsimons said. Quoting a British House of Commons
Select Committee report from 1985, he said that back then a quarter
of a tonne of highly radioactive plutonium had been dumped in
the Irish Sea. "How much more has gone into the sea since
1985?" he asked. At the heart of the justification for the
plant was the profit motive, Mr Fitzsimons said. "British
Nuclear Fuels consider they will make a lot of money from the
MOX plant, and we submit this fully vindicates Ireland's case,"
he said. His legal team also urged the court to adjudge that since
the case was based on the environmental impact of MOX and the
subsequent increase in radioactive discharges from the connected
Thorpe reprocessing plant, it was therefore under its jurisdiction.
They warned that once a canister of spent nuclear fuel is opened
at the MOX plant, as planned, the environmental fall-out will
be irreversible. "Some of the discharges will reach Ireland
and to all intents and purposes will stay there forever,"
said Prof Philippe Sands for the Irish case.
If it endorses the
Irish claim, the Court would then establish a three-person tribunal,
including an Irish-British representative that would hear the
detailed case against MOX. For now, it must decide if the Irish
allegations can justify an injunction that Britain warns will
cost hundreds of millions of pounds and many jobs.
Ireland's plea to Blair: shut Sellafield. Sunday Herald (Glasgow)
25th November 2001
By James Hamilton
The Irish government
yesterday intensified its bid to halt the opening of the new mixed
oxide (Mox) fuel nuclear waste plant at Sellafield. A full-page
advertisement in The Times demanding that the facility at the
Cumbrian complex should be abandoned, was signed by every member
of the parliamentary party and endorsed in a statement by Taoiseach
Bertie Ahern. The Irish government confirmed this month that action
would be taken at the European Court of Justice in a bid to force
the cancellation of the Mox project, and earlier this week spelt
out their opposition at a session in Hamburg of the UN Law of
the Sea conference. Dublin has been consistently opposed to all
activity at Sellafield for a number of years, and has under taken
a number of legal efforts to force its closure. The question is
certain to feature prominently again at the end of this week,
when Blair visits Dublin for a meeting of the British-Irish Council,
which emerged from the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Irish concerns
centre on the threat of radioactive pollution in the Irish Sea
and more recently have focused on the prospect of a terrorist
threat to the Cumbrian installation, which is located 60 miles
from Dublin, and the possible fall-out effects for Ireland.
The advertisement spells
out Dublin's opposition under the headings 'Shut Sellafield! Sellafield
poses an unacceptable and unnecessary risk to our environment.'
Ahern said the move had been made because his party, Fianna Fail,
wanted to put the case against Sellafield to the British people
directly. 'My party is the largest in Ireland, and we want to
bring home to people in Britain how strongly we in Ireland feel
about the danger posed to the population of these islands by the
current operations at Sellafield and in particular by the proposed
new Mox operation. 'The safety of our people and the environment
is being needlessly put at risk. British Nuclear Fuel's safety
record through the decades is appalling and has been severely
censured on several occasions by the British authorities.'
A BNFL spokesman said
it would be inappropriate to comment, saying it was 'an issue
for the two governments'.
UN court rejects Irish plea to stop UK N-plant, Reuters, December
4, 2001
HAMBURG - A United Nations Court yesterday refused Ireland's request
for an injunction to halt the start up of a £472 million
nuclear fuel manufacturing plant at Sellafield on the northwest
England coast. The Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the
Law of the Sea ordered the British and Irish governments to cooperate
and exchange further information about risks to safety and pollution
that would result from starting up state-owned British Nuclear
Fuels' (BNFL) MOX plant in Cumbria on the Irish Sea. "The
court was disturbed by the lack of cooperation between the two
countries. Our aim was to force them to cooperate," Judge
Rudiger Wolfrum told reporters after the hearing.
Ireland sought the
injunction because it said it was worried about radioactive discharges
from the plant which is set to begin operating on December 20.
But the court was not convinced. "In the circumstances of
this case the tribunal found that the urgency of the situation
did not require the prescription of the provisional measures (injunction)
as requested by Ireland," the ruling said.
Ireland said it was
pleased the tribunal recognised Britain had an obligation to "prevent
pollution of the marine environment which might result from the
operation of the MOX plant," Joe Jacob the Irish minister
with responsibility for nuclear safety said in a statement. The
court ordered the two countries to submit written reports to the
Tribunal by December 17, 2001. Judge Rudiger Wolfrum said the
December 17 date had been chosen deliberately so as to give Ireland
a right of consultation about the MOX plant before it becomes
operational. Asked whether BNFL would be allowed to start making
MOX fuel, a mixture of uranium oxides and plutonium, after December
17, Wolfrum said: "We have not forbidden it."
Jacobs said he wants
Britain to delay commissioning the plant until an agreement has
been reached on preventing pollution. Once Britain and Ireland
have submitted their reports there will be informal discussions
between the court, Ireland and Britain, but no more hearings.
Jacobs said the Irish complaint is likely to go forward to the
OSPAR tribunal which rules on the OSPAR convention on maritime
issues in the north west Atlantic. The minister said it was possible
Ireland might challenge at the European Court of Justice Britain's
decision of October 3 allowing MOX to start up.
Setback in Sellafield
court battle by Conor Sweeney in Brussels, Irish Independent 4th
December.
IRELAND'S attempt
to halt the start of operations at the new Mox plant at Sellafield
was dismissed yesterday by an international court. In a judgment
that will please neither side, the court left open the door for
a possible last-minute appeal by Ireland, just days before radioactive
canisters are due to be opened at the new facility. The lengthy
verdict, delivered in Hamburg, the home of the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea, found against the Irish legal team, after
considering the arguments for the past two weeks. Crucially though,
it called on both countries to submit further information within
two weeks and ignored British allegations that the case was outside
its jurisdiction. Such a legal interpretation will encourage further
cases from either Ireland or other countries affected by nuclear
power and reprocessing plants.
"In the circumstances
of this case, the tribunal does not find that the urgency of the
situation requires the prescription of the provisional measures
requested by Ireland," stated the international court, presided
by Judge P Chandrasekhara Rao. The Hamburg-based Court is a UN
body that governs international maritime law.
Led by Attorney General
Michael McDowell, the Irish case rested on the "irreversible"
consequences of the Mox plant being declared operational around
December 20.
However, the 21 judges
unanimously felt that although the Irish arguments raised many
concerns, it did not justify the injunction sought. They believe
that since Britain has given assurances that no transportation
will take from Sellafield until next October, the injunction would
have been premature. Instead, a special court-appointed panel
will tease out the issues next year.
For the first time
however, the court formally recognised Ireland's rights to consultation
on the impact of the new Mox plant, which is due to convert reprocessed
nuclear waste from the adjoining Thorp facility into nuclear fuel.
"Prudence and
caution require that Ireland and the United Kingdom cooperate
in exchanging information concerning risks or effects of the operation
of the Mox plant," states the judgment. In their findings,
the judges also referred to British claims that there will be
no increase in the transport of nuclear materials to the massive
BNFL complex at Sellafield.
They also accepted
the British claim that in fact, very little additional radioactive
material would be released into the maritime environment as a
result of the new plant.
However, the court's
president made it clear that if he was not satisfied with the
detailed additional information he requested from both sides by
December 17, he was empowered to seek further details. The court
also dismissed a British demand that Ireland meet all legal costs.
The Hamburg case represents just one prong of the Government's
legal battle with London. A further action is being heard by the
North Atlantic maritime organisation, OSPAR, while a case may
be launched soon in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
3. Post-September 11th
Deadly terror of A-plant
jet raid War on terrorism - Observer by Robin McKie and Oliver
Morgan Sunday September 23, 2001
Anti-aircraft batteries should be built at the Sellafield nuclear
processing plant as a matter of extreme urgency, the author of
a secret EU report on nuclear safety warned last week. The rupturing
of the atom plant's tanks of lethally radioactive waste would
cause more carnage than any other single act of terrorism could
inflict on this country. Last week both main plants at the Cumbrian
site were shut down after volumes of nuclear waste reached unacceptably
high levels.
The Sellafield tanks
could spray up to two tonnes of deadly caesium-137 into the atmosphere
if struck by a hijacked jumbo jet, states the report by Wise-Paris
- the World Information Service on Energy. This compares with
the 50lb of caesium released during the Chernobyl reactor blast
in 1986. A successful attack on Sellafield could lead to the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of people and leave large areas of Britain
uninhabitable for decades.
The director of Wise-Paris,
Mycle Schneider, one of the report's authors, said: 'After what
happened on 11 September, we know what terrorists are capable
of. It is a question of calculating what the impact will be.'
Sellafield's owners,
British Nuclear Fuels, stressed that their buildings were capable
of surviving a plane crash, but a source said: 'The plants are
designed to withstand collisions with light aircraft or military
planes, but not a commercial jet loaded with aviation fuel. The
consequences could be unthinkable.'
4.
More Sellafield News and Comment
Sellafield shuts plants
as N-waste builds up Paul Brown, September 22, 2001 The Guardian
Both giant nuclear
fuel reprocessing plants at Sellafield in Cumbria, which employ
more than 4,000 people, were shut down yesterday after it became
clear that volumes of high level nuclear waste were reaching unacceptable
levels.
Government regulators,
the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, have been critical of
state-owned British Nuclear Fuels for its failure to deal with
heat producing waste, the most dangerous material stored at the
plant. Earlier this week, Sellafield was identified as a potential
terrorist target following the attack on New York. Despite many
attempts to reduce the amount of liquid waste, the plant which
turns the waste into more manageable glass blocks, has broken
down repeatedly. It has been out of operation most of this year.
None of the three production lines in this vitrification plant
are currently working and the amount of waste is rising, instead
of falling as the regulators have demanded.
The two reprocessing
works deal with spent fuel from Britain’s nuclear reactors
and from customers in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain
and Italy. Staff will not be laid off, but halting production
will seriously damage the profitability of the company.
Foreign customers
are already angry at Sellafield's failure to deal with their contracts
in time. This has caused a 10% increase in costs, running into
many millions of pounds, which is passed on to BNFL customers.
The company was warned again in August that unless it reduced
the amount of waste in holding tanks - currently more than 1,550
cubic metres- by 35 cubic metres for the next 14 years the NII
would close the plant. This year the amount of waste held has
already increased by more than 100 cubic metres. Yesterday, the
company said it had closed both reprocessing plants for maintenance.
Reopening of the two plants, which are the main money spinner
for BNFL, depends on getting the vitrification plant running properly,
something it has not achieved since it opened 11 years ago.
It has only achieved
34% of potential production in a decade, leading to such a build-up
of dangerous wastes that the Irish government has protested to
Britain about the threat to its citizens posed by the highly volatile
liquid.
Yesterday, a spokesman
for BNFL said the company hoped to have two of the three vitrification
lines open next month and the third is due to be commissioned
by the end of the year.
Martin Forwood, from
Cumbrians Opposed to Radioactive Environment, said: "It is
clear BNFL have jumped before they were pushed and shut the plants
down rather than face legal sanction. The company is already years
behind on its production schedules and has some very angry customers.
This will make matters worse."
The fallout Guardian
Environment Section. Wednesday September 26, 2001
With Sellafield seen
as a potential terrorist target, the new government report on
how to manage Britain's nuclear waste becomes more urgent. Paul
Brown on the implications for the industry
The stocks of plutonium
and uranium in the UK, mostly kept under guard at Sellafield,
are no longer the valued national asset we have always been led
to believe. They will not keep the lights on for a century or
two, but are a liability which will cost the taxpayer billions.
These facts are buried deep in the long-awaited document Managing
Radioactive Waste Safely, which the government slipped out the
day after New York was hit by terrorists. The document had been
held up more than a year while the Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI) and the old Department of Environment squabbled over whether
to finally admit that plutonium, once regarded as the world's
most valuable substance, was really a nuclear waste. The issue
was fudged because ministers could not agree on this fateful step,
but the facts in the document speak for themselves. Britain's
61.5 tonnes of plutonium is decaying and becoming more dangerous
and will cost billions to process in a safe form for disposal.
British Nuclear Fuels
(BNFL), the government-owned company that runs the Sellafield
complex in Cumbria and guards the stockpile, still claims that
the plutonium and 60,000 tonnes of uranium is an energy resource
that could be used for fuel in nuclear reactors.
After 50 years, the
fact that the DTI still encourages BNFL to propagate the pipe
dream that plutonium is untapped energy is a reminder that the
same industry claimed nuclear power would produce electricity
too cheap to meter. No government has ever been willing to stand
up to the nuclear industry and spell out the facts. But the new
document is much more revealing. It says that there is so much
plutonium and uranium in store that not enough reactors could
be safely or economically adapted to burn it, even if it was the
wish of the reactor owners to do so. It adds that 90% of the plutonium
and uranium stockpile is useless, and that it would be folly to
add to the problem by continuing to produce more. Despite this,
BNFL continues to do exactly that. The problem for ministers is
that, if they admit this is true, the whole economics of the nuclear
industry and the way it operates will have to change. Admitting
that plutonium and uranium are a liability makes BNFL bankrupt.
It would also cause the closure of the prestige Thorp reprocessing
works at Sellafield which employs 2,600 people.
This conclusion is
bad enough for the government in financial terms, but the politics
are tricky too. The renewed interest by ministers in promoting
more nuclear power does not sit well with these facts. It would
confirm that Britain's energy policy is still anchored in the
thinking of the mid-20th century, when we were intent on building
more and more power stations without any thought for the future.
In those days, it was justified by the need for an independent
nuclear weapon. Now the justification is that nuclear power does
not produce greenhouse gas emissions, and we need security of
energy supply, which does not force us to depend on unreliable
gas pipelines operated by foreigners.
According to the document,
90% of the plutonium stored at Sellafield comes from the old Magnox
reactors. Since the plutonium was no longer needed for new bombs,
it was diverted to be used in a civil fast breeder reactor programme.
These burn plutonium fuel and, in theory, produce oodles of electricity.
But fast breeders have long been abandoned on cost and safety
grounds. The only remaining use for the plutonium is to mix it
with uranium and burn it in conventional reactors. But this is
more costly than conventional uranium fuel derived from ore and
has been rejected for use in Britain as uneconomic by both BNFL
and British Energy (BE) - the privatised arm of the nuclear industry
- for their own UK reactors.
The only alternative
is to export the British plutonium to other countries in the form
of this mixed fuel, known as MOX. But even before the terrorist
attack on New York, moving it around would be a hard trade to
negotiate in an unsafe world. Just as disturbing, the document
reveals that, even if there were a market, there are additional
technical difficulties. The natural decay of plutonium into a
more radioactive substance called americium-241 means that it
would need cleaning up before it could be used. The document says
that one-third of the stockpile is already unusable because of
this. Another 10% is contaminated by chemicals and, additionally,
would have to be cleaned up. Yet ministers hesitate to declare
plutonium a waste, because it would cause a critical financial
problem. The report says "it would have significant financial
implications for the owners of the plutonium. The liability would
fall on the taxpayer." Accurate costings are not available,
the document says, but "are likely to be of the order of
billions of pounds". And that is only for one-third of the
plutonium. The cost implications of dealing with the rest of it
and 60,000 tonnes of surplus uranium do not rate a mention.
One of the problems
the government admits to is that, in order to immobilise the plutonium
to avoid it being used for nuclear bombs, it would have to be
mixed with other dangerous wastes. Making the plutonium very difficult
to handle would have a deterrent effect. This cocktail would then
be placed in glass blocks for storage and eventual disposal. This
glass-block process is currently used at Sellafield to deal with
high-level wastes from reprocessing spent fuel, but is currently
not working because of technical problems. This causes a backlog
of waste from normal operations. It would have to be entirely
revamped to take in the extra plutonium.
Despite this avalanche
of facts, the document reaches no conclusions, merely asking for
public comment, which will be followed by consultation on a timetable
which runs to 2007. Successive governments have sought to avoid
making tough decisions about the nuclear industry, but the signs
are that New Labour will not get away with it this time. While
BNFL insists that plutonium and uranium are a potential asset,
BE takes a different view. BE runs the eight newer, advanced gas
cooled reactors and the single pressurised water reactor Sizewell
B, and is struggling to make a profit in a competitive electricity
market. The company was signed up to have its fuel reprocessed
at Sellafield years before it was privatised. Now BE is paying
for it, because reprocessing is far more expensive than the alternative
of storing fuel. The company is squealing because it is no longer
a subsidised public utility and could go bust.
It comments to the
review that if plutonium was declared a waste "it would be
nonsensical for BE to continue with reprocessing and creation
of further liability". The costs imposed by BNFL on BE are
squeezing the company and its shareholders hard. BE is already
lobbying ministers because of the financial problems this is causing.
Meanwhile, at Sellafield, costs continue to rise as both reprocessing
works and management of waste streams fail to meet production
targets. The fact that BNFL's nuclear liabilities far exceed its
assets cannot be hidden from the public forever. Soon these nuclear
myths will be exploded.
5.
Magnox Reactors.
31 August 2001 Environment
Agency publishes proposed decision on Magnox waste
disposal.
The Environment Agency has published its recommendations and proposed
decisions on BNFL's applications to dispose of radioactive waste
from eight Magnox nuclear power stations in England and Wales
and the research and technology facility at Berkeley Centre. This
follows a major public consultation carried out by the Agency.
Environment Agency Chief Executive, Barbara Young, and Agency
Chairman, Sir John Harman sent the Proposed Decision Document,
containing the Agency's recommendations and proposed decisions,
to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
Margaret Beckett, to the Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn,
and to the Environment Minister of the National Assembly for Wales,
Sue Essex. This will enable the Ministers to decide whether they
wish to exercise their powers under the Radioactive Substances
Act 1993 to issue Directions to the Agency or to hold a public
inquiry.
The Proposed Decision Document provides the Agency's response
to the issues raised by the consultation and explains how it reached
its recommendations and proposed decisions. The document includes
recommendations to Government on the justification of continued
operation/decommissioning (as appropriate) of the power stations
and Berkeley Centre. It also includes the authorisations the Agency
proposes to issue to BNFL and which it claims will: result in
a significant improvement in regulatory control with the introduction
of a single integrated authorisation for each site which includes
new conditions on management competence and supervision, reduce
forty-five out of fifty-eight existing limits on discharges, leaving
eleven as at present and increasing two, contribute to the implementation
of Government policy on the disposal of radioactive waste, and
set out improvement programmes requiring BNFL to explore the scope
for future reductions in discharges. Commenting on the decision,
Environment Agency Chief Executive Barbara Young said: "I
am confident that our proposed authorisations will properly protect
the public and the environment. The new approach, involving a
single integrated authorisation for each site, applies the Agency's
latest regulatory thinking. It will facilitate closer regulatory
scrutiny of BNFL's management competence and supervision, will
put increased pressure on the company to reduce emissions and
will ensure that best practice is applied at every site."
The eight Magnox nuclear power stations which, together with the
research and technology facility at Berkeley Centre, form the
subject of the Agency's
Five of these power
stations (Bradwell, Dungeness A, Oldbury, Sizewell A and Wylfa)
are operating, two (Berkeley and Trawsfynydd) are decommissioning
and one (Hinkley Point A) is defuelling prior to decommissioning.
For each site, the Agency has considered whether current operations
at the site are justified. This involves considering whether the
benefits of current operations outweigh the detriments. In each
case the Agency has concluded that current operations are justified
and has made recommendations accordingly. For each site, the Agency
has considered whether an authorisation should be granted to BNFL.
In each case, it is satisfied that an authorisation should be
granted to the company. Currently, there are several separate
authorisations for each Magnox site, with one for each type of
waste and disposal route. The draft authorisations on which the
Agency consulted were prepared in a new, integrated form, so that
all permitted means of radioactive waste disposal for a given
site would be regulated through a single authorisation. This is
consistent with the Agency's holistic approach to the environment.
The authorisations that the Agency now proposes to issue to BNFL
are based on these draft authorisations. Since the consultation,
the new integrated authorisation has been developed further by
the Agency, taking into account consultation responses.
Although the Agency
proposes to decrease most discharge limits, in two cases it proposes
an increase, one case being at Oldbury and the other at Sizewell
A. In each case, there is a net reduction in the Agency's assessment
of overall radiation dose to the most exposed members of the public
because of proposed reductions in several other limits. The proposed
authorisation for each site includes a new condition on management
competence and supervision, which will facilitate closer regulatory
scrutiny of these aspects. The full EA document is available on
the Agency's web site: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
6.
Nuclear Waste Management Consultation.
DEFRA PRESS RELEASE
12 September 2001 GOVERNMENT LOOKS FOR PUBLIC CONSENSUS ON MANAGING
RADIOACTIVE WASTE
More than 10,000 tonnes
of radioactive waste are currently stored in the United Kingdom,
pending a decision on their long-term future. Even if no new nuclear
plants are built, and reprocessing of spent fuel ends when existing
plants reach the end of their working lives, another 500,000 tonnes
of waste will arise during their clean-up over the coming century.
Some of the substances produced will be radioactive and potentially
harmful for hundreds of thousands of years.
To help stimulate thorough
public debate on the options for managing the UK's radioactive
waste, Environment Minister Michael Meacher today published a
paper inviting comments on a number of issues. These include whether
any or all of the nation's plutonium should be regarded as a waste
product and therefore be included in the management strategy.
The Government's advice
from its Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC)
on managing radioactive waste was also published today.
Involving as many people
as possible in the debate on how radioactive waste should be managed
over the coming centuries will be key to getting the right decision
for this and future generations. Support for future policy can
only be achieved through thorough public debate, Michael Meacher
said, as he announced plans for wide-ranging and comprehensive
consultation.
Managing Radioactive
Waste Safely sets out proposals from the Government and the Devolved
Administrations on how best to initiate a UK-wide debate on future
radioactive waste management policy.
Through opinion polls,
the internet, workshops, citizens' juries, consensus conferences,
stakeholder dialogues, local authority and community groups and
research panels, hundreds of thousands of the UK's population
could give their views on managing radioactive waste over the
coming centuries.
To ensure that all
the information provided is accurate, objective and complete,
the Government and Devolved Administrations propose setting up
an independent advisory body. This would advise on what information
there is, what more is needed, and when enough has been gathered
and analysed to decide how radioactive waste should be managed.
It will help seek the public's views, for example, on whether
waste should be put in an underground repository; or be stored
until more is known about its risks and better ways of dealing
with it or whether indeed there are other options. Only then can
the debate start on where in the UK we should keep this waste
in the long term.
Mr Meacher said:
"Protecting the
public, workers and the environment now and in the future is the
top priority for the Government and Devolved Administrations.
Any decisions made on managing radioactive waste cannot and must
not be rushed. The legacy of a wrong decision could be catastrophic.
The solution we find must protect not only our own future, but
that of generations to come. That solution may take many decades
to implement. We need to start the national debate today".
The paper sets out
a five stage proposed programme of action for taking decisions:
Stage one
This six month consultation about the proposed programme; considering
responses; planning the next stage 2001-2002
Stage two
Research and public debate, to examine the different waste management
options and recommend the best option 2002-004
Stage three
Further consultation seeking public views on the proposed option
2005
Stage four
Announcement on the chosen option, seeking public views on how
this should be implemented 2006
Stage five
Legislation, if needed 2007
The shape and speed
of the programme may change to reflect future developments, including
public responses to today's consultation paper. Although the Government
would like to press ahead as quickly as possible, it is determined
to ensure that the overall strategy wins public confidence.
Notes for Editors
1. Media copies of
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely – proposals for developing
a policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK are available
from DEFRA Press Office. Other copies are available on the DEFRA
website:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/index.htm
Hard copies are available from:
Claire Herdman, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, 4/F7 Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
2. An on-line debate
is also being held on the subject. To join in, anyone can visit
www.ukonline.gov.uk/online/ukonline/home
3. In this paper the
Government and the Devolved Administrations are launching a national
debate which will lead over a period of years to a decision on
the management of low, intermediate and high-level radioactive
wastes. The aim is to encourage a debate via traditional and new
techniques so as to inspire public confidence in the decisions
and the way in which they are implemented. The period of consultation
on this first phase will be six months long.
4. The Radioactive
Waste Advisory Committee (RWMAC) today publishes its advice to
Government on the way in which it believes future policy for the
long-term management of the UK's solid radioactive waste should
be decided. RWMAC is suggesting a fresh approach, one that is
based on fundamental principles of openness, accessible decision-making
and fairness. RWMAC is keen that for the first time, all the practicable
solutions need to be evaluated on, as far
as possible, a common bases, both openly and transparently, to
decide what is best. The Committee has advised Government on the
form of process that it believes needs to be gone through to arrive
at a decision. The committee is also suggesting that the process
is overseen by an independent or, at least, balanced interest
body that is widely perceived as being capable of representing
the broader public interest.
5. The Government has
also commissioned Wilkinson Environmental Consulting to carry
out a review of information needs in relation to options for managing
radioactive waste. This will help to inform the national debate
and research programme. The project will be completed next year.
Nuclear waste plan
is still five years off By Charles Clover, Daily Telegraph, 13
September 2001
AFTER four years without
any plans for dealing with the nuclear industry's 50-year legacy
of radioactive waste, the Government yesterday unveiled a strategy
unlikely to produce a result before the next election.
Michael Meacher, Environment
Minister, said the programme of public consultation and research
into burial - with or without the possibility of retrieval - or
above-ground dry storage would culminate in 2005 with a series
of options for public consultation and an announcement of the
result in 2006. He said that the Government was "starting
from scratch" following the cancellation by the last government
of plans to build an experimental disposal shaft near Sellafield,
which was hotly opposed by Cumbria county council.
Mr Meacher said a decision
about the disposal of 500,000 tons of nuclear waste that the industry
will produce over this century, even if there are no nuclear power
stations, "must not be rushed and may take decades to implement".
Among the options that have been rejected at the outset as too
dangerous is firing waste into space aboard missiles. Mr Meacher
issued assurances that the Government had at present no preferred
option or preferred site for a nuclear waste dump. "There
is no site on the radar screen at the moment. I want a national
debate. I don't want people ever to wake up and find out there
is to be a nuclear storage facility near them. Today the news
is full of horrendous events that people will be discussing for
a very long time. I want to say that this too is an issue which
affects the public, their children and their children's children."
7. Liabilities
Management Authority
BNFL break-up paves
way for part privatisation of nuclear group, Michael Harrison,
INDEPENDENT. 29 November 2001
The Government signalled
the break-up of British Nuclear Fuels last night as it announced
the creation of an agency to take responsibility for Britain's
£40bn in civil nuclear liabilities. The move paves the way
for the part-privatisation of BNFL, shorn of its Sellafield reprocessing
complex in Cumbria and the controversial mixed oxide fuel (Mox)
plant. But environmental campaigners said the announcement amounted
to a U-turn over the future of BNFL, which needed billions of
taxpayers' money to bail it out.
Patricia Hewitt, the
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told the Commons that
all BNFL's nuclear liabilities, estimated at some £24bn,
would be transferred to a Liabilities Management Agency along
with the Thorp and Mox facilities at Sellafield, its 11 Magnox
nuclear reactors and a uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst,
near Chester. The move to free BNFL of Sellafield followed a review
of the company's liabilities that calculated they had risen by
£1.9bn, giving BNFL a net asset deficit of £1.7bn
and rendering it technically bankrupt. Ms Hewitt said the move
marked a "new approach" to the clean up of the legacy
left behind by early military and civil nuclear programmes. She
added that the agency would also assume responsibility for the
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's nuclear liabilities,
which amount to £8.7bn on an undiscounted basis. She said
that it remained the Government's objective to turn BNFL into
a Public Private Partnership but this would not be reconsidered
until 2004-05. The Government had intended to part-privatise BNFL
in the previous Parliament but was forced to abandon its plans
after a scandal over the falsification of safety records at Sellafield.
Mark Johnston, energy campaigner for Greenpeace, claimed the announcement
meant that the planned sell-off of the whole company had now,
in effect, been abandoned. "Only fragments of BNFL will now
be sold and the lions' share is effectively being written off
and run down. There is now no case for Sellafield continuing to
operate as, by doing so, liabilities will continue to increase,"
he said. Friends of the Earth's energy campaigner, Roger Higman,
said the Government had demonstrated that nuclear power was "an
expensive and highly dangerous liability, and that no new nuclear
power plants should be built".
BNFL said its 10,000
staff at Sellafield would continue to operate the plant. Norman
Askew, the chief executive, said many of BNFL's historic liabilities
predated the creation of the business and the Government's move
would help management to focus on the running of the business.
Anti-nuclear campaigners said the only bits of BNFL likely to
be sold off now were its UK fuel fabrication business and its
Westinghouse division in the US. But a spokeswoman said it was
too early to say what would be included in the sell-off.
THAT’S IT FOR
2001.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO
ALL SAFE ENERGY READERS.
|