WANA
NEWS - NEWYDDION CWNC
|
May
|
2002
|
Mai
|
|
CONTENTS Hinkley Point named as site for next nuclear reactors in UK Hinkley Point in Somerset, and Hunterston in Ayrshire have been named by BNFL and British Energy as the preferred sites for a new programme of nuclear reactors. 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. It is known that British Energy want to build twin reactors on its sites so Hinkley Point could get two 1100 mW reactors within the next decade. The nuclear industry is reticent about its plans because it ‘does want to run ahead of public opinion’. It clearly hopes that the Government’s news management skills will be brought to bear. Delight was expressed that David King, the Government’s chief scientific advisor backed the replacement of Britain’s existing nuclear power stations with a new programme of reactors as a ‘bridge’ to a future of renewable energy sources. WANA Comment The idea that nuclear power, a lumbering dinosaur of a technology that devours huge capital resources, and has suffered massive delays in the past, can be transformed into a ‘quick fix’ is laughable. At the core of the Energy Review is the call for a ‘step change in energy efficiency and expanded role for renewables’ because these are both flexible in their deployment, and offer new prospects’ The Return of TINA (There Is No Alternative) Governments must overcome public concerns about nuclear energy if the EU is to comply with its Kyoto protocol commitments, European energy and transport commissioner Loyola de Palacio warned an informal meeting of EU energy ministers in Pamplona on April 28th. "We have to choose", said Ms de Palacio. "If we give up nuclear energy, we will not comply with Kyoto...We need to make an enormous effort to convince the public about the benefits of nuclear energy." Donald Johnston, secretary-general of the OECD said that the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change outweigh the risks associated with nuclear energy. WANA Comment This early appearance of TINA is disconcerting evidence of a lack of commitment to renewable energy sources. Up to date analysis of the performance of Westinghouse reactors worldwide is included in this newsletter. Nuclear Power has failed to deliver in the past, and will fail to deliver in the future. It will burden future generations with a legacy of radioactive waste, and at the same time completely stifle the development of renewables. What Ms de Palacio has to do, after September 11th, is to explain what is to be done to protect the 480 nuclear sites, worldwide, from terrorist attacks. Renewable power is robust because it is distributed.
National Assembly’s statement on Energy: “We are committed to playing a full part in rising to the challenge of a clean energy future for Wales - renewable energy means a sustainable future. We are working in partnership to: · find innovative ways to promote energy efficiency · maximise acceptable on and off shore wind farm developments; · fully exploit biomass opportunities for the benefit of our rural economy; · ensure we become a world leader in marine and fuel cell energy technologies with long term potential; and · seize mainstream gas and coal opportunities” WANA Comment: This is a welcome, sound and considered approach towards a clean and robust energy strategy. We await to see the details which we hope will achieve these laudable objectives. Particularly as Scotland has taken an even stronger line on the development of that country’s huge renewable energy resources. Wylfa - Can it operate beyond 2004? In May 2000 the BNFL announced its plan to extend the life of Wylfa’s reactors to 2016 or even 2021. This was said to be dependent on MAGROX fuel, which was destined to be reprocessed through Sellafield's Thorp plant. When the idea of using Magrox fuel was dropped eight months later, BNFL said that they would still like to extend Wylfa’s life. In BNFL’s latest Annual report the closure date for Wylfa was put at 2009. Recent rumours that BNFL were not going to try to operate Wylfa beyond 2004 have been denied by BNFL. To operate beyond that date BNFL have to submit a Periodic Safety Review to the NII. The Long Term Safety Review for Wylfa assessed by the NII in 1995, predicted that some graphite component cracking might have occurred but that safe operation of the reactors was possible up to 33 years. The NII noted: “however, degradation of graphite properties becomes more important as reactors get older....we will be seeking additional confidence in the long term integrity of these structures.” As WANA News has revealed, over the last 18 months, confidential nuclear industry documents which survey the state of the Magnox reactor cores at the 'end of life', predict the 'failure' of parts of the Wylfa graphite cores before 2006. For public confidence all the safety documentation and the assumptions about the continuing safety of operating ageing Magnox stations have to made public. Since the bodging of the 'superheater weld' defects at Wylfa which have kept the station out of action for at least fifteen months, output has been as variable as the stations projected life. See table below: Year of forecast lifetime closure 1971 CEGB 20 years 1991 1984 CEGB 30 years 2001 1992 Nuclear Electric 35 years 2006 1995 NII Safety Review 33 years 2004 2000 BNFL 45-50yrs 2016-21
POWER WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY British Energy are poised to sign a deal with BNFL to run its ageing Magnox power stations for the rest of their lives. The deal, to be announced shortly, would see BE taking over the BNFL Magnox workforce, receiving a management fee and being given an undertaking that it can run the stations and sell the power at 'no financial risk'. Observer May 5th 2002 WANA ASKS: Who owns the safety case? Giving the site licence to a ‘no risk contractor’ with an incentive to squeeze the last Watt out of the reactors is a recipe for disaster. We will be at even greater risk as ageing components combine with the commercial imperative. REPPIR The Radiation (Emergency Planning and Public Information) Regulations 2001 (known as REPPIR) are now in force. The regulations require people to be sent information about radiation hazards if it is ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that they may be affected by a radiation emergency. The events of Sept 11th 2001 have given the regulations special significance. The government have already acknowledged that an attack on Sellafield would affect large areas and many people. The present areas designated as requiring information to the public are small and adjacent to the nuclear installations. HSE so far have said that the events of Sept 11th require no enlargement of the areas in which residents must have information sent to them about radiation hazards. They claim that this opinion on what is reasonably foreseeable is based on the advice of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. WANA does not believe that the Inspectorate can justify such an opinion. We have shared this concern with the Nuclear Free Local Authorities organisation with a view to meeting the Inspectorate. The posting of information about radiation hazards would have an effect on the public response to the energy review. WANA believes that information should be sent to all members of the public before decisions are taken on any proposal to build new nuclear installations. The government in a report published last November by DEFRA on the management of nuclear waste showed again its inclination to ‘manage’ information to the public. It forgot to mention the existing waste management bill of £85 billion pounds (£85 000 000 000) reported by DTI minister Margaret Beckett last year. (Hansard 18 October 2001). Exelon drops pebble bed reactor In April, Exelon Nuclear, the largest nuclear plant operator in the US (it owns and operates 17 reactors at 10 stations), dropped out of an international consortium developing a ‘smaller, cheaper kind of nuclear plant’, the so-called pebble bed modular reactor, which is currently in the design stage. The remaining consortium partners - ESKOM of South Africa, BNFL and South Africa’s Industrial Development Corp. - have announced intentions to continue development without Exelon, although they may seek a new partner. The feasibility phase this year was to be followed with actual construction between 2004 and 2007. However, an international team studying the feasibility of building the PBMR has released its report to the government. According to the team, lack of clarity prevails on technical and financial aspects and the team doubted the economical feasibility of the project. The conclusions are a further disappointment to the PBMR company in light of expectations that its recommendations would be largely favourable. Source: WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor, May 3rd 2002 Westinghouse - The Truth A WANA analysis of orders for Westinghouse reactors shows that peak of surviving orders was in 1976, since then it has been downhill all the way, as 40% of all orders for Westinghouse reactors have been cancelled. In the 1970’s unscrupulous salesmen sold an untested product to gullible customers. Once experience had been gained of the construction and operation of the Westinghouse PWR, cancellations followed and orders ceased.
The nuclear industry’s claims are wildly optimistic. Prospective investors in the Westinghouse AP1000 reactors are asked to believe that they can be built in three years, and will be ‘available’ from their scheduled start-up for 90% of the time throughout a 60 year life.
Because of long delays during construction Westinghouse reactors worldwide have achieved only a 58% load factor from their scheduled start up dates, and 73% from their actual (delayed) start up dates. None have operated beyond the age of 34, and eight have shut. The 90% availability claimed for the AP1000 has never been achieved over any stations lifetime by any Westinghouse reactor. The last Westinghouse order (Sizewell B in the UK) was in 1987. The AP600 and the AP1000 are untried and unproven reactors with uncertain economics, without the safety systems regarded as essential for Sizewell B. TRAWSFYNYDD PUBLIC INQUIRY- National Park Society's statement The Assembly has confirmed that there is to be a public inquiry, but as yet the ‘terms of reference’ have not been made known. (see May 9th statement below) On April 29th Snowdonia National Park Society adopted the following strategy that they would like to see adopted at Trawsfynydd: (a) the safe storage on site of intermediate level waste (ILW) in the short term, (b) the safe storage of all significantly radioactive material on site, which must be safe for the long term and (c) the eventual complete removal of the latter from the site, coupled with the complete removal of above-ground structures, once a national safe store becomes available. Supporting the BNFL proposal to build a large store on site for the ILW, they suggest that: (a) all the ILW is held within this store in containers of a type and size suitable for eventual transport away from the site, for example to a future government-designated long term depository; (b) that the ILW store is built sufficiently large to accommodate in the future the waste which will result from dismantling the reactor buildings; and (c) that the ILW store is minimally visually intrusive, due either to mounding it or to screening it with trees.
GOVERNMENT LAUNCHES CONSULTATION ON ENERGY POLICY
On
May 14th, Energy Minister, Brian Wilson launched a major consultation
on energy policy, following publication earlier this year of the Energy
Review. The responses (deadline 13th Sept) will help to shape an Energy
White Paper, by the turn of the year. FoE criticised the paper on
the basis that it tiptoes away from targets for renewables; worries
about security of supply; and re-opens the possibility of public subsidy
for nuclear power. How confident can we be that other low carbon options will be reliably available, in sufficient time and sufficient quantity, to ensure that we can continue on a path of reducing our carbon emissions as most existing nuclear stations close over the next 20 years? A better question to ask, about the place of nuclear power in the next 20 years, would be: How confident can we be that new nuclear reactors will meet the stated objectives of competitiveness, affordability, sustainability and security of supply, given the industry’s pitiful economic track record, unwillingness to deal with radioactive waste or dismantle old reactors and the vulnerability of all nuclear plants to terrorist attacks and accidents.
The consultation asks what regulatory and/or other changes might be desirable to reduce the risk and uncertainty for investors. Clearly Brian Wilson wants the AP1000 to get an easy ride from the NII, despite the omission of safety systems regarded as necessary for Sizewell B.
The consultation brings the Government’s commitment to a green energy future into question. Read it for yourself at http://www.dti.gov.uk/industries_energy.html
Hard copies are also available from Angie Parkinson, Department of Trade and Industry, Room 1105, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET. Trawsfynydd Decommissioning & ILW Store Public Inquiry: On May 9th the Planning Inspectorate sent out a statement of ‘matters which the Assembly and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry particularly wish to be informed about’, that ‘does not prevent you from raising other matters which you consider relevant’: · The visual, environmental and access implications of the proposed development on the site and surrounding areas including: - the implications during the construction period as well as during future operation; - the effect of the development on sites and species in the area protected under European Legislation; and - the effect of the development on the aqueous environment during the construction period as well as during the operation. · Provisions to prevent accidental release of radioactivity from the ILW store, · Alternative options for interim storage of ILW. · The impact of the use of explosives on the environment should they be required to be used for excavation works required for the development. WANA wants to examine the safety of the whole site during 'decommissioning', including reactor dismantling, not just the safety of the ILW store. But first the inquiry should ask why BNFL thinks it can flagrantly ignore Government and regulatory policy: “...early decommissioning, particularly where there are few safety benefits from deferral, is more in line with the Government Policy of sustainable development and the use of the precautionary principle.” [GUIDANCE FOR INSPECTORS ON DECOMMISSIONING ON NUCLEAR LICENSED SITES. HSE NUCLEAR SAFETY DIRECTORATE Issue Date: 13/3/01 Appendix 4 Para A4.2.3]
You have until June 21st to object to BNFL’s ‘safestore’ and to urge a thorough and wide ranging public inquiry which will look at safety and alternative timescales for dismantling the reactors.
Write to: The Planning Inspectorate, Crown Building, Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ [ref: APP H9504/X/02/514182]
16th Low-Level Radiation & Health Conference 21-23 June 2002 DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RADIATION RELEASES AND HEALTH Contact:
Fiona Lyng 010353 14022818 EVENTS May 30th 12.30pm Sellafield briefing at National Assembly Contact: 01982 570362 June 21st-23rd 16th Low Level Radiation & Health Con Dublin Inst of Technology June 29th 11am WANA Meeting - Cardiff County Hall Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff
Published by WANA PO Box 1 Llandrindod Wells, Powys LD1 5AA Tel: 01982 570362 Email: hughrichards@gn.apc.org |
