|
1.0 Editorial
Many apologies
for the non-appearance of the Safe Energy Journal so far in 2002.
One reason for this is that there is too much going on. It is
ironic really - just when you need the news most in order to be
able to keep up, one of your sources dries up.
As a consequence,
this issue is written as a bit of a catch up. There are no news
stories printed in full, and references to useful web-sites appear
throughout. This shorter, more readable Journal may actually prove
to be more useful. Let me know what you think.
In the meantime, for inspiration, you need to look no further
than the Irish Shut Sellafield Campaign. Yesterday, on the 16th
anniversary of Chernobyl, Ali Hewson, Bono's wife, delivered a
protest postcard on behalf of millions of Irish residents calling
for the plant to be closed down. The postcard showed a human eye
with the words "Tony, look me in the eye and tell me I'm
safe".
More than 1.3 million of the protest cards are being delivered
by the Royal Mail to Downing Street, Prince Charles, at St James's
Palace, and to Norman Askew, the head of British Nuclear Fuels
Ltd, which operates the power and processing plant.
Ms Hewson said: "There's millions of people in Britain who
live as close to Sellafield as we do and the risks are great.
A report commissioned by the European parliament has said Sellafield
has the potential to be 80 times more hazardous than Chernobyl."
She called on members of the public from across Britain to join
them in their campaign because, she said: "You are at as
much risk as we are. There's the potential for it to be very serious."
Sign Ali's e-mail petition at http://www.shutsellafield.com/visit.htm
And why not send your congratulations while you're at it. The
Irish and Norwegian campaigners have certainly made us Brits look
as though we are asleep recently. It's time for that to change.
2.0
Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP)
The plutonium
MOX fuel at the centre of the data falsification scandal in 1999/2000,
is scheduled to be returned from Japan to Sellafield over the
next few months. The two armed ships, that would be used for the
proposed shipment, the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal, left
their homeport Barrow-in-Furness on April 26th, travelling to
Japan via the Caribbean Sea and Panama Canal. (See
http://www.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nuctrans/2002apr26.html
)
The Irish Government, which is currently preparing evidence for
a submission to the International Tribunal on The Law of the Sea
(ITLOS) against the operation of BNFL's Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP),
has said that the planned shipment breaks the UK Government's
legal commitment to the ITLOS made last November in Hamburg. The
UK had told ITLOS that there would be no shipments in connection
with SMP before October 2002. (
http://www.itlos.org
)
The UK
Government argues that this return shipment has nothing to do
with operations of the SMP. However, the return of the faulty
MOX fuel, is one of five conditions set by the Japanese Government
and electrical utilities for new MOX contracts with the SMP -
no return, no contracts. The UK has also told the Americans, who
must give their authorisation for these shipments, that the plutonium
will be re-extracted and made into fresh MOX and sent back to
Japan. The UK Government can't have it both ways either the import
is in breach of the US authorisation or it is in breach of the
undertakings given to ITLOS.
Over 30
countries in the Caribbean, Latin America and the South Pacific
opposed the shipment of the ultimately doomed MOX fuel to Japan
in 1999. The return is almost certain to generate even greater
opposition. The main concerns of countries en-route are the vulnerability
of the shipment to catastrophic accident, issues of liability
and recovery in the event of accident. Security of the transport,
including terrorist threats were a major point of concern before
the events of September 11th 2001, and are sure to be even higher
up the agenda post-September 11th.
SMP
go-ahead
The Government
granted the authorisation to allow BNFL to begin plutonium commissioning
of the Sellafield MOX Plant in October 2001. Greenpeace and Friends
of the Earth took joint legal action against the Government in
the High Court and the Appeal Court in November. The Government
ignored construction costs when considering whether the plant
was justified under radiological protection law. It may make sense
from a purely economic point of view to ignore these so-called
'sunk costs', but the justification test is designed as a way
of protecting the public from unnecessary radiation exposure.
Under these circumstances, the two NGOs claimed it was unlawful
for the Government to give the plant the go-ahead.
Although
the groups lost the case and a subsequent appeal, they claimed
a partial victory because future nuclear projects in Britain will
have to take account the cost of the construction and other capital
costs before they are approved.
The Irish
Government also failed in its attempt to halt the start of operations
at SMP at the ITLOS tribunal. 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 place from
Sellafield until next October, the injunction would have been
premature. Instead, a special court-appointed panel will tease
out the issues later this year. The Hamburg case represents just
one prong of the Irish Government's legal battle with London.
A further action is being heard by the North Atlantic maritime
organisation, OSPAR.
3.0
Sellafield Discharges
Technetium-99.
The Environment
Agency of England and Wales (EA) published it "Proposed Decision
on the Future Regulation of Technetium-99 Discharges" from
Sellafield in September 2001. (See http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/168412/?version=1&lang=_e
)
The proposals are still awaiting a final decision by Margaret
Beckett, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs. Technetium-99 (Tc-99) discharges have been hugely controversial
since 1994, when the quantities discharged into the Irish Sea
started climbing. Environment Ministers from the 5 Nordic countries
have complained to Tony Blair after rising levels were detected
off the Norwegian coast. The Irish Prime Minister has also raised
the issue with Blair. Lobsters and seaweed off the coast of Sellafield
regularly breach the Community Food Intervention Level (CFIL)
- the level at which action should be taken after a nuclear accident.
The EA's
proposed decision requires BNFL to implement a programme to re-route
future arisings of the Medium Active Concentrate (MAC), which
contains the Tc-99 to the High-Level Waste storage tanks by 31st
March 2003. Unfortunately, there is also a backlog of MAC stored
on the Sellafield site which cannot be dealt with in this way.
At the moment this material is scheduled to be processed through
the Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant (EARP), which cannot remove
Tc-99. However, it may be possible to introduce new abatement
techniques at EARP, which would also remove the Tc-99. BNFL has
been investigating the use of tetra-phenyl-phosphonium bromide
(TPP) to precipitate out the Tc-99. However, the UK regulators
had some serious concerns about the solid waste-form that this
would produce. If these problems can be overcome, the discharge
limit for Tc-99 can be reduced earlier than 2006. If the 10Tbq
limit were introduced in 2003, the discharge saving (assuming
that MAC diversion begins on schedule) would be around 140Tbq.
Greenpeace's
submission to the Tc-99 consultation included a paper by consultants,
Dr Ian Fairlie and Dr David Sumner, which estimated that collective
doses from Tc-99 may have been underestimated by as much as 1,000
times.
BNFL is
now preparing a safety case for the TPP abatement technique .
Suggestions in the Norwegian Press that TPP is inferior to MAC
diversion misunderstand the difference between stored MAC and
future arisings. If we are to get an immediate reduction of Tc-99
discharges, BNFL will need to introduce both abatement techniques.
An Early
Day Motion has been put down by Jimmy Wray MP, calling for an
immediate end to Tc-99 discharges. (See http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=984
). Please ask your MP to sign it.
Discharges
Consultation.
The EA
held a consultation during 2001 on proposals for the future regulation
of all other discharges apart from Tc-99. The consultation ended
on 3rd December 2001, but the EA's Decision Document has yet to
be published. When it is, it will be sent to the Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary
of State for Health for a final decision. The consultation documents
are available at
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/145908/?lang=_e®ion=
A CD-Rom with the documents and supporting information is also
available. (For spare copies contact pete.roche@uk.greenpeace.org
and a copy of Greenpeace's full response to the consultation.)
Many of
the proposals by the Agency for enhanced regulation including
stricter limits for many nuclide releases - are laudable and should
be implemented. But more important than reductions in limits,
we need to see progressive reductions in actual discharges. Because
of the wide gaps between them, reductions in limits are not the
same thing as reductions in actual discharges. BNFL has already
warned that "that some short-term increases in discharges
will result from higher plant throughputs."
Throughputs
of the two Sellafield reprocessing plants have been low in recent
years, so it is extremely likely that radionuclides actually discharged
into the Irish Sea will rise, compared with 1998 when the OSPAR
Agreement (An International Treaty for the Protection of the North-East
Atlantic) was signed. Although the EA says its proposed changes
will "represent 20-30% reductions in the potential radiological
impact of discharges", the actual radiological impact, compared
with 1998, is likely to increase by a factor of between 2 and
4, despite commitments made by John Prescott to "progressive
and substantial reductions".
Plutonium.
The focus
on Tc-99 in recent years, important as this is, has also tended
to obscure the accumulation of other radionuclides in marine life.
Plutonium, for example, is one of the most dangerous radioactive
substances known and one speck can cause cancer if inhaled. The
amount of plutonium-241 now accumulating in shellfish in the Irish
Sea gives serious cause for concern. Shellfish regularly breach
the Community Food Intervention Level - the level at which action
should be taken after a nuclear accident. Plutonium discharged
from Sellafield since the 1950s was expected to stay permanently
locked within the sediments at the bottom of the Irish Sea. However,
recent research suggests that not only is it blowing back onto
the coast of Cumbria and South-west Scotland in sea spray and
contaminating seafood such as mussels, but it is also starting
to move northwards into the North Sea and beyond.
BNFL argues
that it is too late to do anything about the historic legacy of
waste discharged from Sellafield, and that discharges of plutonium
are today significantly lower than they were in the past. But
BNFL continues to discharge plutonium into the Irish Sea. This
is only going to make a difficult problem worse. And, of course,
should BNFL achieve the throughputs it wants in its two reprocessing
plants, plutonium discharges will once again start to rise.
For more
information on Sellafield and La Hague's discharges, see the "STOA
report" which was recently debated in the European Parliament.
http://www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/pdf/00-17-01_en.pdf
It is
an excellent compendium of everything you need to know about Sellafield
discharges. It is worth passing this around as far and wide as
possible.
Meanwhile
the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has still
not produced a final version of its discharge strategy. The consultation
on the draft version ended in September 2000. DEFRA says the final
document should be published later this year. It is committed
to submitting the plant to OSPAR by July. For the draft document
see
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/radioactivity/discharg/strategy/pdf/strategy.pdf
Also worth
a look are the reports of the Discharges Working Group of the
BNFL Stakeholder Dialogue.
http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/dialogue/mn_dialogue_reports_bnfl.shtml
Economic
Nonsense
The UK
Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, agreed at the North Sea
Ministers' Conference in March to evaluate options for the management
of spent nuclear waste fuel after BNFL's current reprocessing
contracts come to an end. The "Bergen declaration" notes
the concern of a number of North Sea states regarding marine discharges
from Sellafield . But an evaluation of alternative fuel cycle
options carried out for OSPAR by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) demonstrated that implementing the non-reprocessing option
(dry storage) for spent nuclear waste fuel would eliminate the
discharges and emissions of radioactive substances that currently
arise from reprocessing. (See http://www.greenpeace.org/~odumping/
). Mr Meacher's statement also ignores the fact that many
of BNFL's customers, particularly British Energy, would like to
get out of their existing reprocessing contracts. British Energy
has described reprocessing as "an economic nonsense".
BE is
Sellafield's second largest customer, after the Japanese utilities.
A BE spokesman stated that:
"We
simply do not believe in reprocessing because of its huge costs
and we want to renegotiate this contract. We are paying six times
as much to deal with our spent fuel as American generators do
at a time when electricity costs have fallen markedly" .
BE has also stated that reprocessing "…has left us with
a service we don't need, for a product we don't want, and at a
price we cannot afford" .
British
Energy's executive chairman Robin Jeffrey announced in February
that the company was putting on hold a move to refer its reprocessing
contracts with BNFL to the UK's Office of Fair Trading . It does
not, however, mean that BE would not welcome a switch from reprocessing
to storage of spent nuclear waste fuel.
The established
of the Liabilities Management Authority would be an ideal opportunity
for the UK Government to take a lead in the renegotiation of BNFL's
reprocessing contracts. Many of BNFL's customers are reluctant
to continue with reprocessing, but are forced to do so because
of binding contracts signed in the 1970s before the economics
of reprocessing became clear. The LMA should initiate discussions
with BNFL's existing reprocessing customers, including British
Energy (BE).
4.0
Magnox Reactors and Reprocessing
Chapelcross
and Calder Hall
British
Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) believes it has found a solution to the
graphite core moderator shrinkage problem that has been causing
problems at Chapelcross and Calder Hall. The problem first became
apparent at Chapelcross-1 in southern Scotland at the end of August
2001 after a control rod did not drop as smoothly as expected
during a drop test at the start of an outage. BNFL's repair plan
is to insert steel tubes, or "sleeves," down the control
rod access holes.
BNFL says
the repairs to Chapelcross-1 should be completed early next year.
An outline safety case is being presented to the Reactor Nuclear
Safety Committee in the early summer.
Initially, the sleeving operation will be confined to Chapelcross-1
and the "sister" Calder Hall reactors 2, 3, and 4 at
BNFL's Sellafield complex. Later it may be necessary to sleeve
the remaining four reactors.
The four-unit
Calder Hall station has been off-line since late last year to
enable BNFL to regain confidence that the reactors' defueling/refueling
machines can properly carry out their tasks following the July
5 dropped fuel incident at Chapelcross-3. The modifications to
the fuel route to prevent similar incidents have been completed,
according to Calder Hall sources, and staffers are being trained
to use the modified equipment. This means Calder Hall-1 should
be able to restart soon as its irradiation history is very different
to that of units 2, 3, and 4.
At Chapelcross,
where tritium is produced for the Ministry of Defence, BNFL is
looking to have three of the station's four reactors operating
by July. Chapelcross, which like Calder Hall was prevented from
refueling/defueling following the July 5 dropped fuel incident,
has already been given permission to restart use of its reactors'
fuel routes by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. (Nucleonics
Week - April 25, 2002 BNFL proposes fix to restart sidelined oldest
Magnoxes)
Magnox
Closures
With the
closure of the Magnox station at Bradwell in Essex, BNFL now has
only 6 Magnox stations remaining. The company's closure timetable
for the remaining stations is reproduced below.
Station Age at closure Last Date of Closure Size
Calder Hall 50 2006-2008 168MW
Chapelcross 50 2008-2010 168MW
Dungeness A 40 2006 450MW
Sizewell A 40 2006 420MW
Oldbury 40 2008 434MW
Wylfa 38 2009 980MW
For the
spent fuel inventory in April 2000 see
http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/dialogue/pdf_report_bnfl_dwgappendix6.pdf
BNFL insists
that Magnox spent nuclear waste fuel, unlike oxide fuel, must
be reprocessed (although others would dispute this). As a consequence,
"The operation of Magnox reactors is inextricably linked
to the associated fuel cycle ". BNFL has made a commitment
to cease reprocessing through the Sellafield Magnox reprocessing
plant by the end of 2012 in order to meet OSPAR commitments"
. This timetable depends on BNFL doubling the throughput of its
Magnox reprocessing plant compared with the last five years. If
it doesn't manage to achieve that the Magnox stations will have
to be closed earlier. For a discussion on Magnox reprocessing
plant throughputs see Appendix 8 and 9 of the BNFL Stakeholder
Dialogue Spent Fuel Management Options Working Group report http://www.the-environment-council.org.uk/dialogue/pdf_report_bnfl_spentfuelappendices.pdf
As can
be seen from the above table, the reactors are relatively small
(compared to say Hunterston B which is 1,320MW). Together they
provide around 6-7% of electricity in England and Wales. (All
of the electricity from Chapelcross goes south). It would not
cause any great problem if these stations were closed down. Earlier
closure of the Magnox stations, would allow earlier closure of
the Magnox reprocessing plant, which is the source of the bulk
of Sellafield's pollution. The claimed economic 'benefit' from
continuing to operate them is highly contentious, and the Environment
Agency failed to assess the economic case during a recent discharge
re-authorisation exercise. These reactors are uneconomic, dangerous
and well past their sell-by-date. They should all be shut now.
The LMA
will assume ownership of the Magnox reactors in either April 2004
or April 2005. The establishment of the LMA is therefore an ideal
opportunity to end the whole Magnox fuel cycle.
5.0 Energy Review
The Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit published
its energy review on 18th February. The report is not a statement
of Government policy, but it raises a broad range of issues that
are important to the future evolution of energy policy. The Government
now intends to set in process a period of public consultation,
probably running for three months from May to July, leading to
an energy White Paper in the autumn. See http://www.piu.gov.uk/2002/energy/report/3.html
Reactions
from environmental groups were mixed. Those advocating greater
energy efficiency, such as the Energy saving trust (EST), were
pleased, while those with long-standing anti-nuclear campaigns,
such as Greenpeace, were much less positive. The Press hailed
the suggested 20% target for renewables by 2020 as the dawning
of a new industry, but environment groups called the target "timid".
The report concludes that the cheapest method of cutting UK greenhouse
gas emissions and safeguarding security of energy supply would
be to improve household energy efficiency and increase the proportion
of renewably generated electricity.
However,
the option of replacing existing nuclear power capacity has not
been ruled out. The report emphasises its high cost, but advises
the government not to close the door on the possible need to replace
ageing nuclear capacity with new reactors over the next two decades.
AP1000
or CANDU-NG?
On February
26th British Energy and BNFL announced a joint venture to investigate
a £9bn plan to build nine nuclear stations to replace Britain's
ageing advanced gas-cooled reactors. The aim of the joint venture
is to assess the cost of nuclear building and get it down to a
level at which it can compete with gas. Both companies say that
electricity prices are so low that new building of any form of
generation is not viable and Britain faces a series of California
style blackouts unless the market is reformed. The two companies,
which admit that moves to build nuclear stations "must not
get ahead of public opinion," nevertheless named the sites
for the first two stations, Hunterston in Ayrshire, and Hinkley
Point in Somerset. Both the existing AGR stations on these sites
are due to close by 2011 and the new stations would need to be
running by then. BNFL hopes that British Energy will replace these
stations and seven other AGRs with the AP 1000 design being developed
by its US subsidiary, Westinghouse. It believes it can build these
stations in three years. British Energy is keeping its options
open by signing a similar joint venture with owners of the Canadian
Candu reactor design to see which would be most suitable.
Meanwhile The Independent on Sunday has reported that the Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI) is to push the nuclear issue back
onto the agenda during the public consultation exercise. In its
section on nuclear power, the consultation paper is expected to
pose three questions that will be weighted towards the industry.
It will ask what are the realistic lead times to develop nuclear
power stations; the impact on carbon emissions; and the measures
needed to combat nuclear waste. There are also concerns that the
20% target for renewables will not survive.
Scottish Executive become renewable enthusiasts
Despite
fears of a nuclear revival, the review represents the opportunity
to campaign for a full and comprehensive investment programme
into renewable energy, combined heat and power, and energy efficiency.
The review sets out a strategy for a major expansion of renewable
energy, albeit smaller than hoped, which would benefit Scotland's
economy in particular. The recent announcement by the Scottish
Executive that a wave test centre is to be set up in Orkney will
put Scotland at the forefront of this new industry. The announcement
by Danish wind turbine builder Vestas that a new factory to produce
wind turbines will be built near Campbeltown, also points to the
possibility of a massive new manufacturing industry which could
be developed in Scotland. The Vestas plant will initially employ
100 people and the company will invest nearly £3m.
In order to develop these renewable industries to their full potential
Scotland needs a strong domestic demand, but it also needs an
export market for both equipment and electricity. Around 10% of
Scotland's electricity is generated from renewable sources (the
majority from old hydro power schemes). The Executive has made
a commitment to produce around 18% by 2010 and 30% by 2020. At
a UK level, the Government is committed to providing 10% of electricity
demand from renewables by 2010. Scotland could help England meet
its target by exporting renewable electricity. Once a renewable
industry has been developed in Scotland, it could soon be exporting
wind and wave technology to the rest of the world.
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 2001. 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.
For the Scottish Executive reports see
http://www.scotland.gov.uk
The Scottish Executive issued its initial response to the UK Energy
Review on 13 September 2001. The paper gives little encouragement
to attempts to revive the nuclear industry in Scotland. Instead
the Executive has stressed the importance of energy efficiency
and the tremendous potential for renewable energy sources. The
statement does not completely shut the door on nuclear, but the
Executive "takes the view that no decisions … can be
taken before the results of [the nuclear waste management] consultation
are available" in 2007. The submission also makes it clear
that any application to build a new plant in Scotland would require
planning consent from Scottish Ministers.
A New
Scientist editorial concluded that: "If the government accepts
[the PIU's] 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. … Tony Blair … should seize
the opportunity with both hands. It is the nearest thing yet to
his cherished notion of the green industrial revolution".
The Independent on Sunday (16th December), however, reported that
Blair will order the Government to keep open the option of building
a new generation of nuclear power stations, and that together
with energy minister Brian Wilson is determined not to close down
nuclear energy in Britain. According to the paper 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. The PIU report also appears
to have been heavily modified by officials in its final stages,
to soften its approach on nuclear power. Although the report calls
for a 20% target for renewables by 2020, a 30% target was earlier
considered by the unit.
The Scottish
Executive's support for renewables and opposition to new nuclear
stations is said to have been influential in the PIU's deliberations.
6.0
Dounreay News
The Government
announced on 18th July 2001 that reprocessing at Dounreay would
end. Energy minister Brian Wilson announced that the main reprocessing
plant at Dounreay will not be re-opened to treat the 25 tonnes
of plutonium fuel remaining at the Caithness site.
However
Mr Wilson's statement gives no clear indication of the government
decision on the future of the fuel - other than that Mr Wilson
has asked Dounreay "to take whatever action is necessary
to ensure the safety and security of the fuel". This still
leaves open the possibility that some or all of the fuel could
be reprocessed at Sellafield - a move which would be opposed throughout
Scotland because of the hazardous transport and the resulting
radioactive discharges into the sea from the Cumbrian site.
The Government
press statement said: "No clear preference emerged from [the]
UKAEA's assessment of the options, or the public consultation."
This is a surprising comment given the overwhelming opposition
in Scotland and the neighbouring Nordic countries to reprocessing
in favour of storage. All the local authorities in the Highlands
and Islands as well as the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, environmental
groups and the Liberal and Scottish National Party parties all
favoured long-term storage. Nordic countries were also consulted
by the UK and they also rejected reprocessing in favour of storage.
The £4
billion plus Dounreay decommissioning programme will involve approximately
1500 activities, and the construction of up to 20 major facilities
over the next 15 - 20 years. These projects will require constant
vigilance by all those concerned about potential threats to the
environment. (See NII/SEPA Safety Audit of Dounreay 1998 - Final
Report 2001 http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/auditfin.pdf
)
The Radioactive
Waste Management Advisory Committee's recent report (see http://www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/reports/dounreay/index.htm
)on the Restoration of Dounreay (Sept 2001) provides a worrying
insight into the state of things at the site. The RWMAC report
was commenting on the 8 volume Dounreay Site Restoration Plan.
See
http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/rplan.htm
Recent media reports have been dominated by the issue of particles
on the beach, but there are many facilities and waste dumps on
the site which, according to RWMAC, pose a much greater risk.
A few examples are given below:-
Ø
The Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) which ceased operation in 1977
has a driver fuel assembly jammed in the core. A large number
of breeder elements also remain in place. One of the consequences
of delay is that all the reactor electrical supplies and ventilation
systems will now have to be replaced in order to permit decommissioning
to continue. The planned installation of a treatment plant to
remove caesium-137 from its liquid sodium primary coolant cannot
be progressed until regulatory issues are resolved. Until the
coolant is removed decommissioning cannot continue.
Ø
High level liquid waste is still stored in tanks at Dounreay,
and although there is an intention to build a vitrification plant
to turn this highly dangerous waste into a more stable form, it
is not expected that the plant will be in operation until 2008.
Ø
RWMAC remains concerned about the lengthy timeframe (15 years)
for emptying the intermediate level waste out of the Dounreay
shaft.
Ø
RWMAC is unconvinced about whether the Low Level Waste Pits can
meet the requirements of a post-closure safety assessment. This
has implications for both historic and future arisings of low
level waste. Now that the pits are full, a new disposal route
is required. A new facility near Dounreay; storage on the Dounreay
site, and transporting the waste to Drigg are all options. RWMAC
raises the possibility that the waste in the existing pits may
need to be decanted. So both historic and future arisings may
need to be transported through the length of Scotland to Drigg
near Sellafield.
Meanwhile
Dounreay has launched a public information campaign to raise awareness
about the key decommissioning issues at Dounreay over the next
few years, and has undertaken to consult the public where options
exist for dealing with particular waste at the site. UKAEA is
producing a regular Bulletin which can be seen at http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/bulletin15.htm
LOW-LEVEL
WASTE AT DOUNREAY
UKAEA
Dounreay has and submitted an application to the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency for consent to transfer some of the solid low-level
waste (LLW) at the site to Drigg in Cumbria for disposal. The
disposal facility at Dounreay is now effectively full and the
site had been storing solid LLW pending the completion of a major
study to identify the best practicable environmental option for
managing the significant quantities of this waste that will arise
from the site restoration plan.
The regulators,
(The NII and SEPA) in their 1998 Safety Audit, advised that an
alternative disposal facility exists at Drigg and that national
policy requires that waste should be disposed of wherever possible.
The application is regarded by UKAEA as an interim solution to
the management of LLW pending the completion of the major study
of the options for the longer-term.
In the
meantime, the application to permit some of this material to go
to Drigg is expected to be the subject of public consultation
by SEPA. However the UKAEA claims that it has no option on this,
and that it is obliged to do this by the Regulators under the
terms of the safety audit. Although committed to informing people,
UKAEA will not be asking for views on this issue since it is committed
to a specific technical option.
If consent
is granted, UKAEA may begin moving some of the LLW to Drigg later
this year or early next year. It is likely to amount to one or
two lorry loads a week or a trainload once every one or two months.
'Our aim
is to remove as much of the material from the site as possible
to allow it to be decommissioned.' Dounreay spokesman, Colin Punler.
The Herald on Sunday (3rd February 2002)
In addition
to the planned transfer of low level waste to Drigg, wastes currently
scheduled for transfer to Sellafield currently include:-
(1)
Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) Breeder Fuel elements .
These are around 44 tonnes of this fuel on the Dounreay site.
Approximately 32 tonnes have yet to be removed from the reactor
vessel, and the remaining 12 tonnes are in the form of cut fuel
elements, fuel pieces and debris. There are two main options for
the treatment of the DFR breeder fuel. The first option involves
transportation of the fuel to Sellafield for reprocessing in the
Magnox Reprocessing Plant. The fuel can be conditioned and repackaged
into a form suitable for transport to Sellafield and treated in
the Magnox reprocessing plant before the UK's Magnox reprocessing
programme is completed. This route was utilised in the 1960s for
a quantity of breeder fuel. The second option involves passivating
the metallic fuel for encapsulation as waste. However, UKAEA has
started discussions with BNFL over the treatment and transport
of the breeder fuel and a preliminary contract has been signed
under which BNFL is carrying out technical reviews of processing
and transport .
(2)
Plutonium Contaminated Material (PCM).
The UKAEA's
reference strategy is to transfer this category of Intermediate
Level Waste to Sellafield for supercompaction, over-packing into
stainless steel drums and cementation in the Sellafield Waste
Treatment Complex. UKAEA assumes this transfer will take place
after 2010. However, UKAEA has identified the need for a fallback
strategy which is to construct a new PCM supercompaction facility
at Dounreay, with storage of the wastes at Dounreay after treatment.
UKAEA should decide now to implement this fallback strategy.
(3)
Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) Fuels.
Despite
the announcement by Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, on 18th July
2001, that there would be no further reprocessing at Dounreay,
the option of reprocessing this fuel at the THORP plant at Sellafield
has not been ruled out. It will apparently be some time before
firm proposals emerge for the management of PFR fuel.
Shipping
nuclear waste around Scotland will face concerted opposition.
'The UKAEA should drop these plans now, and get on with developing
monitorable and retrievable storage at Dounreay,' says Glasgow
councillor David Stevenson, convenor of Scotland's alliance of
12 anti-nuclear councils.
Particles
on the Beach
A further
two radioactive particles were found on Sandside Beach in March
2002 bringing the total found, since 1984, up to 19. This has
prompted the owner of the beach, Geoffrey Minter, to once again
withdraw consent for the monitoring on his land. He claims that
the monitoring is so scant that it is lulling the public into
a false sense of security. He has also erected new signs which
say that it is inadvisable to take children and dogs onto the
beach, and is looking into the possibility of closing the beach
to the public.
The Dounreay
Particles Advisory Group (DPAG) at its meeting in January in Edinburgh
discussed the likely source of the particles and whether or not
particles are still being released into the environment from the
Dounreay site. The group now seems to have reached a consensus
that there probably is a continuing source of particles and that
there is a possibility that the source is one not yet thought
of.
Dr Philip
Day of Manchester University, who is acting as a consultant to
Minter, gave the group a presentation of his finding at the November
meeting. He has criticised the standard of monitoring on the beach
as inadequate, and believes it may only be detecting as few as
1% of the particles. DPAG did not disagree with his findings.
7.0 Nuclear Waste Management Consultation
The Government
finally published the Radioactive Waste Management Consultation
document on 12th September. (see http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/index.htm
)
The Scottish
Executive announced further steps to consults Scots on the consultation
paper. It awarded a contract to Scottish Council Foundation to
identify the views of the Scottish public on how best to engage
them in developing and implementing effective radioactive waste
management in Scotland. Views will also be sought on the form
of an independent advisory body.
In-depth
interviews and focus groups have been undertaken in a number of
areas across Scotland with members of the public and with stakeholders.
A report on the findings will be published in April.
People can enter into a public debate on the consultation document
at UKOnline @
http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/citizenspace/consultations
8.0
Liabilities Management Authority
Following
press reports that BNFL is on the verge of bankruptcy (The Sunday
Telegraph 21st September) because of its inability to meet nuclear
clean-up costs, estimated to be up to £34bn, the Government
signalled the break-up of British Nuclear Fuels at the end of
November and announced the creation of an agency to take responsibility
for Britain's civil nuclear liabilities. The move is expected
to pave the way for the part-privatisation of BNFL. BNFL will
be shorn of its Sellafield reprocessing complex, and the Magnox
reactors.
Patricia
Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told the
Commons that most of BNFL's nuclear liabilities, would be transferred
to a Liabilities Management Authority along with the Thorp and
Mox facilities at Sellafield, its 11 Magnox nuclear reactors and
the uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst. The LMA will also
assume responsibility for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's
nuclear liabilities, which amount to £7bn on an undiscounted
basis. The partial privatisation of BNFL will be reconsidered
around 2004-05.
The establishment
of the LMA and the transfer of assets and liabilities from BNFL
and the UKAEA will require primary legislation. A Bill will be
introduced at the earliest opportunity, but this cannot be until
the next Queen's speech in November, and may not happen until
November 2003. A White Paper will be published in June to set
out in more detail on the Government's overall approach to discharging
the UK's public sector civil nuclear liabilities. It will spell
out the role of the LMA and how it is expected to operate in practice,
and address a range of associated issues. It will complement the
consultation process on long-term waste management arrangements
that is currently under way and draw on the responses to it. The
DTI still does not know whether its "Nuclear Reform Bill"
will find a space in the November 2002 Queen's Speech. If it does,
the LMA will be up and running by October 2003, and will assume
ownership of Sellafield and the Magnox reactors in April 2004.
If it doesn't, everything will be delayed by one year.
The Department
of Trade and Industry is in the middle of an informal consultation
exercise on how best to set up the Liabilities Management Authority.
Consultants have gathered views from anti-nuclear groups and communities
living near nuclear facilities. There will be further consultations
after the White Paper is published.
Until
the White Paper is published many questions will remain. For example,
although the Minister said the proposals "will not affect
the company's existing contractual commitments to its customers
in any way", will the establishment of the LMA make the renegotiation
of contracts with British Energy more likely?
Once Sellafield
has been transferred to the LMA in 2003 or 2004, BNFL will be
retained to manage the site for a year. After that the company
will have to compete for a contract to continue in that role.
THAT'S
ALL FOLKS
|