News Archive – May 2005

NEWS EXTRA
Sellafield leak could spell the end for reprocessing

An estimated 83 cubic metres of highly radioactive liquid has leaked into an enclosed chamber in the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) at Sellafield. The operator, British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) says there is no danger to the public. But the chamber is now too radioactive to enter - fixing the problem will take months and may pose a risk to workers having to undertake the recovery operation [1].

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which took ownership of Sellafield on 1st April 2005, says keeping the plant shut may be the most economical option. THORP wasn’t expected to complete all of its contracts, domestic and foreign, until around 2010, but the leak now means future operations will be open to discussion once BNFL, the contractor managing Sellafield on behalf of the NDA, has completed its inquiry into the incident in about two weeks time [2].

The NDA is expected to get almost half its income from operating nuclear facilities like THORP, so, because of the leak, it will now find itself short of cash for the urgent task of cleaning the nuclear industry’s mess, unless the government bails it out with yet more taxpayers’ money.
THORP has a history of technical problems and financial losses. It was built by BNFL, which also owns Westinghouse - the company that wants to sell new reactors to the UK. Claims made in the 1970s about the safety, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of THORP are now being made about the untried, untested reactor design that BNFL and Westinghouse want to build in the UK.

[1] “Huge Radioactive Leak Closes THORP nuclear plant”, by Paul Brown, The Guardian 9 May 2005
[2] “Close Nuclear Leak Plant for Good says Sellafield”, by Oliver Morgan, The Observer 15 May 2005

NEWS EXTRA
Beckett’s efficiency ambitions could defeat nuclear power

Joan MacNaughton, the Director-General of energy policy at the Department of Trade and Industry, says a decision is needed quickly on new nuclear stations to avoid a steep drop in nuclear output by 2020, because it will take at least a decade to get stations operational and targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are likely to be missed [1].

Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is said to be opposed to new nuclear stations [2] has responsibility for energy efficiency, which has the best chance of defeating the nuclear industry’s plans. Making the UK more energy efficient is a far safer, cheaper and more realistic solution and can start making savings now, rather than in a decade or more when new stations are built [3]. We could easily halve energy consumption, with no real impact on living standards [4]. Yet Beckett has been criticised by the Association for the Conservation of Energy for watering down targets and an unambitious Energy Efficiency Plan [5]. If she is serious about defeating the nuclear renaissance all she has to do is give energy efficiency the priority it deserves.

[1] “Secret papers reveal new nuclear building plan”, by Oliver Morgan, The Observer 8 May 2005
[2] “Beckett puts block on building new nuclear power stations” by Robert Watts and Andrew Murray Watson, Sunday Telegraph 8 May 2005
[3] Letter from Philip Sellwood, The Times 16 September 2004
[4] Letter from Andrew Warren, The Telegraph 13 May 2005
[5] http://www.ukace.org/pubs/press/ST040426.pdf

NEWS EXTRA
Terror fears lead to new nukes information blackout

Information about new nuclear power stations, including safety issues and potential hazards, will be concealed from the public under guidelines drawn up by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security because of terrorism fears. Objectors to new nuclear construction would be prevented from seeing detailed plans at planning inquiries. Instead, the attorney general would select an "appointed representative" to argue the case on their behalf, for which the objectors would have to pay.

[1] “Terror fears draw veil over nuclear plants”, by Richard Norton Taylor, The Guardian 6 May 2005

NEWS EXTRA
Proposals to curtail Planning Inquiries to help nuclear developers?

New proposals which could make it almost impossible for the public to object to major projects such as nuclear power stations have been proposed in Scotland. A leaked Scottish Executive memo, entitled Modernising the Scottish Planning System, suggests that if the Executive considers a project to be of national significance then it should "limit the scope for it to be challenged on grounds of need ... limiting the issues to those such as location, and detailed consideration of associated environmental effects". National priorities set by the cabinet would be subject only to scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament, but would not require the Parliament's approval. [1]

British Energy (BE) sees the current planning system as an obstacle to nuclear revival. It says the system should deal with planning issues rather than technical and safety ones, and the time spent on public inquiries should be reduced, curtailing one of the few chances the public has to have a democratic input into the decision-making process. [2]

[1] “FoE anger at leaked Planning Law Changes” by Kirsty Scott, Guardian 4 May 2005
[2] “Blair to Press Nuclear Button” by Michael Harrison, Independent, 15 February 2005.

New nukes: who will pay

The City would probably have to pay for new nuclear plants, if a government review of the question of whether to start building nuclear plants again gives the go-ahead. But who is going to pay? According to Matsui Babcock, the energy consultancy and engineering company, it will cost £12bn to build 10 new nuclear power plants in the UK. The construction expense would be higher unless a single, modular design is used for every station. The Treasury does not want to foot the bill. That leaves City institutions and utility companies to dig deep to find the cash. Keith Parker, the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, says: "There have to be some enabling measures to give the right signal to investors. For example, there is no way investors are going to be interested when it takes six years to get planning permission for a new plant, so reform of planning law would be a good start." Other helpful measures from the Government would include pre-licensing new plant designs and expediting the creation of a long-term policy on the disposal of nuclear waste. Another way the government could encourage the construction of new nuclear plants would be to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 that power generating companies are allowed to produce without penalty.

Sunday Telegraph 1 May 2005