Put-up or Shut-up - A challenge to the nuclear industry.

At Hen Goleg, Aberystwyth, on February 19th, eighty campaigners from all
over Wales pledged their opposition to any attempt to build more nuclear
reactors in Britain or Europe. It is only two years since the Government
published a radical white paper on energy to put the UK on a path towards a
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 60% by 2050. This goal will be
achieved mainly by promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency. Rumours
that the Government are planning a new white paper on energy to pave the way
for new nuclear stations, should they be re-elected, are causing anger and
disbelief.

WANA joined with CND Cymru, CORE (Cumbrians Against a Radioactive
Environment) and Greenpeace, to issue a challenge to the nuclear industry.

BNFL is pretending that its (generation III) pressurised water reactor (PWR)
the Westinghouse AP1000 is 'ready for deployment' and that a new reactor
program of ten plants will prove an economically attractive way for the UK
to produce some of its electricity. Lobbying by BNFL and its nuclear
affiliates is partially fuelling the calls for a programme of new nuclear
reactors in the UK.
There is a simple way for BNFL to establish whether their AP1000 design is
licensable, - that is technically acceptable and economically viable - in
the UK: BNFL should apply for a license.
The company should submit the AP1000 design, together with the application
fee to the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate. It should also disclose the
financial measures to support its proposal including details of private
companies willing to finance construction, decommissioning and waste
disposal. All of this should be made public.
In order to test its public acceptability the nuclear industry should, at
the same time, disclose in full the environmental criteria for the reactor
(from construction through to security measures, decommissioning and spent
fuel disposal), and give a list of preferred sites for new reactors and
spent fuel and waste storage. In this way the nuclear industry's plans can
be understood in a technical, political, environmental, security and
economic context.
The 2002 Energy Review stated that it was difficult to assess the
contribution that new nuclear reactors could make to a low carbon future.
Concerns about radioactive waste, accidents and terrorism may limit or
preclude their use, but costs of production could fall substantially if new
(generation IV) designs are effective, and that the nuclear option should
therefore remain open.
According to the Review, current development work could produce a new
generation of reactors in 15-20 years, that are more financially competitive
than those available today.
BNFL is attempting to get its untried and untested AP1000 design accepted
much sooner, on the basis the design is ready to be built and is also cost
effective. The environment movement believes that BNFL's design is however
an attempt at cost cutting as it omits safety features which are regarded by
the NII as essential for a PWR (The industry claims it compensates for this
by introducing some elements of 'passive safety' to the design).
We believe the public and Parliament will be understandably wary about the
cost-cutting motive behind the 'simplification' of PWR designs, while
prospective investors are unlikely to be impressed by design innovation that
does nothing, of itself, to prevent accidents that in a very short time,
could convert a huge investment into a huge liability.

Hands off the NII!
To ensure that the public can trust the licensing procedure, we ask the
Government to guarantee that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate remains
free from political interference. To ensure widespread acceptance of the
licensing procedure it should be open and transparent, and allow public
participation. Further, we insist there should be no new energy 'White
Paper' without a further round of public participation in a new Energy
Review. (See EDM 609)

Groundhog Day
The last time that the British nuclear industry applied for a license for a
PWR was in 1981. At that time the Westinghouse SNUPPS design, a Generation
II reactor which already had several years operating experience, was
submitted for construction at Sizewell.
Design changes required by the NII in order for that design to meet British
safety standards resulted in Sizewell B having 13% more large pipework and
22% more cabling than SNUPPS (as well as 75% more structural concrete)[1].
The last surviving US order for a Westinghouse reactor was made over 30
years ago. In the US the Westinghouse AP600 design dating from the mid
1980's has been licensed but no-one has invested in it, so it has never been
put to the test.
The AP1000 increases output from the AP600 reactor pressure vessel by
packing it with more fuel and pumping through more water, thus defeating the
lower power density safety principles of the AP600.
The passive cooling of the containment is designed to remove sufficient heat
from the containment in the event of an accident to prevent the containment
rupturing and releasing large amounts of radioactivity into the environment.
The AP1000 'simplification' (cost cutting) involves stripping 50% of the
valves, 83% of the pipes, 87% of the control cables, and 35% of the pumps
from a similar sized PWR. Earlier this year Richard Mayson of BNFL conceded
the real motive behind the design changes to the AP1000 when he admitted [2]
"In broad terms, it's roughly half the concrete and steel and therefore it
doesn't take a genius to work out that's roughly half the capital cost of
what Sizewell should have cost."
Doubts that the AP1000 can fulfil British safety standards with far less
pipework and cabling than the original SNUPPS design have led the nuclear
industry to call for the 'harmonisation' of British reactor licensing
procedures with those of the US, and the streamlining of planning
procedures.
1. Sizewell B Inquiry, CEGB proof 8 App 5, Fig 6
2. Speaking at an Institute of Physics Symposium, quoted in Nucleonics
Week/Vol 45/No.19/ 6-5-04

FUTURE OF UK ENERGY SUPPLY
EDM 609 31.01.05
Please encourage your MP to sign the following Early Day Motion tabled by
Harold Best if they have not already done so.
That this House calls on the Government to sponsor an open,
accountable, transparent, and continuous public dialogue to advise upon,
evaluate and publish all options for secure, sustainable and affordable
future UK energy supply, before issuing a White Paper.

Mr Harold Best, Mr Harry Barnes Peter Bottomley Mr Ronnie Campbell, Mr
Martin Caton Mr David Chaytor Jeremy Corbyn, Mrs Ann Cryer Mr Bill
Etherington Paul Flynn, Mr Win Griffiths David Hamilton Mr Stephen
Hepburn, Dr Brian Iddon Mr Eric Illsley Mr Brian Jenkins, Lynne Jones Mr
Elfyn Llwyd Rob Marris, John McDonnell Mr Kevin McNamara Mr Alan Meale,
Julie Morgan Mr Stephen Pound Syd Rapson, Alan Simpson Llew Smith Bob
Spink, David Taylor, Dr Rudi Vis, Mrs Betty Williams

Decommissioning strategy 'up for grabs'.
Dr Ian Roxburgh, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority,
speaking at a conference in London on March 10th made clear the limitations
of his powers:
"I am not going to 'turn off' the Magnox stations or stop
reprocessing at Sellafield. The consideration of such measures is, according
to the DTI, 'novel or contentious' and is the provenance of Government and
Parliament.
But on decommissioning strategy he was a lot more positive:
"Consultation is going to be done because we want to do it.
'Step-changes' in innovation in the industry give us the opportunity to do
it (decommissioning) quicker.
[The example was given of spraying concrete structures contaminated with
plutonium with a binding polymer both before and during conventional
demolition]
"I want to describe outcomes that include: lower doses, lower
discharges, less waste and less transportation of waste.
Some of what he said was couched in the impenetrable jargon of nuclear
management, so careful analysis is needed:
"Lifecycle baselines (LCBLs) are being sent back because they
haven't got a stakeholder 'buy-in'."
This means that BNFL's plans for the whole of the rest of the life of each
nuclear site are being rejected because they haven't been developed with the
participation of all those who are concerned about each site.
It was acknowledged that while these plans had some interesting elements in
them there was little strategic thinking.
"The thinking of the last twenty years is 'up for grabs'.
Electricité de France have a strategy of decommissioning that aims to get
sites 'back to grass' within 25 years. Adopting such a strategy would add
only 15% to the costs of the current BNFL strategy, and this will be
'rehearsed' in the NDA's strategy consultation document."
"It is not sensible to debate site end-points that are 70 years off.
It is up to local communities to decide 'end points' for their nuclear
sites.

Summing up the Safegrounds conference Mark Hannan (NDA) chose a few
statements that had been made during the day including Roxburgh's 'The
thinking of the last 20 years is 'up for grabs', but also: 'Strategies
which delay clean up beyond 30 years are unacceptable'. (Hugh Richards WANA)
[Safegrounds is a forum for developing good practice guidance on the
management of radioactively and chemically contaminated land on nuclear and
defence sites in the UK. WANA is represented on the steering group]

WANA comments:
The NDA statements at this conference are the clearest indication yet that
the BNFL strategy of delaying reactor decommissioning for anything from 85
to 130 years after shutdown is dead. What eventually happens to each site is
going to be up to local communities to decide. As Mark Hannan put it: 'How
can each site swallow itself?'.
As for overall strategy, the NDA is clearly preparing a consultation
document that establishes that earlier decommissioning is both possible and
desirable.

Implications for Trawsfynydd
Ian Roxburgh was a planning inspector. It is likely that he has read and
absorbed the inspector's report, and the assessor's report into the
Trawsfynydd Public Inquiry.
The executive summary of the LCBL for Trawsfynydd only became available in
early March (the whole document has yet to be received by WANA). The plan
aims "to drive the project to a cost effective and timely conclusion". Yeah,
right.
The Trawsfynydd site will be cleared by 2096, with the serious work on
dismantling the reactors starting about 75 years from now. The charts (in
the executive summary) showing staffing levels are inadequately labelled,
distorted to make the next 10 years look important, and inconsistent (the
figures don't add up, see redrawn chart).

On the last day of the Trawsfynydd public inquiry, Lawrence Williams, as HM
Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, said that there was no reason on
earth why the reactors should not be dismantled within 30 years of shut down
'other than the non-availability' of a national repository for the
radioactive waste. He is now heading the safety section of the NDA.
At Trawsfynydd, a £70 million cosmetic roof, the 'safestore,' is likely to
be ripped apart within 15 years of its construction in order that the
reactors can be dismantled. The NDA are looking at ways of reducing the cost
of liabilities.
To prevent a massive misallocation of public resources:
1 There should be an immediate moratorium on preparations for the
safestore.
2 The proposed ILW store should be increased in size to accommodate
all the decommissioning waste on the site, including the reactors, in a
passively safe form.

British Energy chief in shock exit
Mike Alexander, architect of British Energy's recently completed
restructuring, has unexpectedly quit the company after just two years. His
job as chief executive at Britain's biggest electricity generator has gone
to Bill Coley, a 61-year-old non-executive director of the company who
retired from Duke Energy, the American power group, in 2003. Losses at
British Energy ballooned to £87 million in its third trading quarter, giving
nine-month losses of £349m, up from £80-odd million in the corresponding
nine months of the previous year.
The Guardian Tuesday March 22, 2005

EVENTS
April 16th 11am WANA Meeting - Cardiff County Hall Atlantic Wharf,
Cardiff
May 5th General Election

Published by WANA PO Box 1 Llandrindod Wells LD1 5AA
Tel: 01982 570362
Email: hughrichards@gn.apc.org