DOCSLIB.ORG

Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami: Implications for the UK Nuclear Industry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami: Implications for the UK Nuclear Industry Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK nuclear industry Final Report HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations September 2011 Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE © Crown copyright 2011 ONR Report ONR‐FR‐REP‐11‐002 Revision 2 First published September 2011 You may reuse this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open‐ government‐licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected]. Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to [email protected]. AP1000 is a registered trademark of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC in the United Kingdom and may be used or registered in other countries. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners. For published documents, the electronic copy on the ONR website remains the most current publically available version and copying or printing renders this document uncontrolled. HM Chief Inspector’s Final Fukushima Report Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE Acknowledgements In preparing this report I am indebted to many colleagues in the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), those outside of ONR who have taken the time to provide submissions of many types, and members of the Technical Advisory Panel that I set up to provide independent authoritative advice. I am also very grateful to many dedicated scientists and engineers of other agencies and Government bodies whose excellent work I have had access to. Mike Weightman HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations September 2011 HM Chief Inspector’s Final Fukushima Report Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE Foreword On 11 March 2011 Japan suffered its worst recorded earthquake. The epicentre was 110 miles east north east from the of the Fukushima Dai‐ichi (Fukushima‐1) nuclear power site which has 6 Boiling Water Reactors. Reactor Units 1, 2 and 3 on this site were operating at power before thed event an on detection of the earthquake shut down safely. Initially 12 on‐site back diesel generators were used to provide the alternating (AC) electrical supplies to power essential post‐trip cooling. Within an hour a massive tsunami from the earthquake inundated the site. This resulted in the loss of all but one diesel generator, some direct current (DC) supplies and essential instrumentation, and created massive damage around the site. Despite the efforts of the operators eventually back‐up cooling was lost. With the loss of cooling systems, Reactor Units 1 to 3 overheated. This resulted in several explosions and what is predicted to be melting of the fuel in the reactors leading to major releases of radioactivity, initially to air but later by leakage of contaminated water to sea. It is clear that this was a serious nuclear accident, with an International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) rating of Level 7 (the highest level). Tens of thousands of people were evacuated from a zone extending 20km from the site and remain so today. So far, the indications are that the public health effects from radiation exposure are not great. The Secretary of State (SoS) for Energy and Climate Change requested on 14 March 2011 that I examine the circumstances of the Fukushima accident to see what lessons could be learnt to enhance the safety of the UK nuclear industry. I was asked to provide an Interim Report by the middle of May 2011, which was published on 18 May 2011, and this final report within six months. At the time of writing, not everything is known about the detailed circumstances and contributory factors, and may never be, given the state of the site after the tsunami. However, many facts are available, useful information has been submitted to us, more information has been gleaned from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other nation's regulatory activities, further analysis has been undertaken, and the Japanese Government has provided an extensive report. I also gained insights from my leading an international mission of experts to Japan, during which I visited the Fukushima Dai‐ichi (Fukushima‐1), Fukushima Dai‐ni (Fukushima‐2) and Tokai sites. As indicated in my Interim Report, this Final Report is wider, covering all types of nuclear installations in the UK. Both reports link into other work underway or planned which seeks to learn lessons such as the European Council "Stress Tests" and the work of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) and the IAEA. As with the Interim Report, this Final Report does not examine nuclear policy issues. These are rightly matters for others and outside my organisation’s competence and role. It looks at the evidence and facts, as far as they are known at this time, to establish technically based issues that relate to possible improvements in nuclear safety and its regulation in the UK. HM Chief Inspector’s Final Fukushima Report Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE From our work in bringing together this Final Report, having reviewed all the additional information and our further analysis, I am confident that the conclusion and recommendations of my Interim Report remain substantiated. Where appropriate, I have added to these with further clarification and some additional conclusions and recommendations. Mike Weightman HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations September 2011 HM Chief Inspector’s Final Fukushima Report Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE Summary Introduction On the 14 March 2011 the Secretary of State (SoS) for Energy and Climate Change requested HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations to examine the circumstances of the Fukushima accident to see what lessons could be learnt to enhance the safety of the UK nuclear industry. The aim of this report is to identify any implications for the UK nuclear industry, and in doing so co‐operate and co‐ordinate with international colleagues. The SoS requested that an Interim Report be produced by the middle of May 2011, with a Final Report six months later. The Interim Report was published in May 2011. This is the Final Report, referred to above. This report considers the implications for the UK nuclear industry, and has been expanded from focussing mainly on the nuclear power sector to cover all UK nuclear facilities. This report provides some background on radioactive hazards, and how people are protected against them. It also provides background on nuclear power technology, and the approach to nuclear safety in the UK, internationally and in Japan. It also describes how we have taken forward the work and how we expect to report on final responses to our recommendations. The report details who we have liaised with and describes the measures we have put in place to provide independent technical advice for our work. The detailed circumstances of the accident in Japan are not yet fully known and some may not be possible to determine given the loss of control and of certain instrumentation. Nevertheless, we consider that there is sufficient information to further develop lessons for the UK, and it is important to seek to draw early lessons wherever we can and to ensure those lessons are put into action in the UK as soon as possible. Sufficient was known by the time our Interim Report was finalised to enable us to draw key conclusions and recommendations. Additional information has become available since our Interim Report; in particular, the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) fact‐finding mission to Japan, and a large body of information in a report by the Japanese government. We have reviewed all of this information, and that of the many submissions to us, as well as conducting our own further analysis. This has enabled us to review our Interim Report recommendations and conclusions and undertake a review of the UK regulatory regime and our standards. As a result we have clarified and supplemented our Interim Report recommendations and made some new recommendations and conclusions. We have also set out our approach for taking the work forward. In taking the findings in this report forward, we should recognise that to achieve sustained high standards of nuclear safety we all need to adhere to the principle of “continuous improvement”. This principle is embedded in UK law, where there is a continuing requirement for nuclear designers and operators to reduce risks “so far as is reasonably practicable” (SFAIRP), which for assessment purposes is termed “as low as reasonably practicable” (ALARP). This is underpinned by the requirement for detailed periodic reviews of safety to seek further improvements. This means that, no matter how high the standards of nuclear design and subsequent operation are, the quest for improvement should never stop. Seeking to learn from events, new knowledge and experience, both nationally and internationally, must be a fundamental feature of the safety culture of the UK nuclear industry. The UK nuclear regulatory system is largely non-prescriptive. This means that the industry must demonstrate to the Regulator that it fully understands the hazards associated with its operations and knows how to control them. The Regulator challenges the safety and security of their designs and operations to ensure their provisions are robust and that they minimise any residual risks. So, we expect HM Chief Inspector’s Final Fukushima Report Page (i) Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE the industry to take the prime responsibility for learning lessons, rather than relying on the Regulator to tell it what to do.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download a Copy
    Cover image: Courtesey of EDF Energy — www.edfenergy.com/energy CONTENTS... 1 AT A GLANCE... 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY... 4 BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY... 5 WHAT THE PUBLIC THINK... 6 HOW NUCLEAR CREATES ENERGY... 7 HOW A REACTOR WORKS... 8 THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE... 9 MANAGING WASTE... 10 RADIATION EXPLAINED... 12 NUCLEAR AROUND THE WORLD... 14 UK NUCLEAR SITES... 16 NUCLEAR NEW BUILD... 17 NEW BUILD IN NUMBERS... 18 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE... 19 DECOMMISSIONING... 20 CAREERS IN NUCLEAR... 21 FUTHER INFORMATION... AT A GLANCE... Nuclear is a major part of our energy mix. Today it accounts for 21% of electricity generated in the UK and has been providing secure low carbon electricity for over 60 years. Low carbon energy, including There are 15 nuclear power and renewables, nuclear power account for almost 51% of the reactors operating UK’s generation electricity mix across eight sites in the UK In 2016 nuclear energy avoided 22.7 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions in the UK BEIS,Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2018 That’s equivalent to taking around a third of all cars in the UK off the road Civil nuclear contributes over £6 billion to the jobs in the UK civil nuclear sector UK economy as much as aerospace manufacturing 12,159 Women in civil nuclear 1,981 People on apprenticeships Three quarters of the public 914 believe nuclear should be part People on graduate schemes of the clean energy mix Jobs Map figures generated from participating NIA members 1 This simple timeline charts some of the key people, events and legislation A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY..
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Effect of Clay Composition on Safety Function
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER Investigating Effect of Clay Composition on Safety Function Performance in a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science and Engineering 25th of September 2018 Adam Peter Sims School of Chemistry 49 Table of Contents Table of Contents.............................................................................................................2 Table of Figures................................................................................................................8 Table of Tables................................................................................................................15 Commonly used Abbreviations.......................................................................................17 Abstract............................................…............….............................................................19 Declaration of Work.................................................................................................…....20 Copyright Statement....................................................................................................…21 Acknowledgements.......................................................................…............................…22 About the Author............................................................................................................23 1. Introduction and Thesis content ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stress Tests for UK Non Nuclear Power Plants
    Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE Stress tests for UK Non Nuclear Power Plants Progress Report 5 December 2011 Progress Report on Stress tests for UK Non Nuclear Power Plants Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE © Crown copyright 2011 First published December 2011 ONR Report ONR‐UKST‐REP‐11‐001 Revision 0 You may reuse this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open‐ government‐licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected]. Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to [email protected]. Unless otherwise stated, all corporate names, logos, and Registered® and Trademark™ products mentioned in this Web site belong to one or more of the respective Companies or their respective licensors. They may not be used or reproduced in any manner without the prior written agreement of the owner(s). For published documents, the electronic copy on the ONR website remains the most current publicly available version and copying or printing renders this document uncontrolled. This document is issued by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), an agency of HSE. For further information about ONR, or to report inconsistencies or inaccuracies in this publication please visit www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear. Progress Report on Stress tests for UK Non Nuclear Power Plants Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE Executive Summary Following the events at Fukushima, Japan on 11 March 2011, the nuclear industry in the UK responded quickly to review UK plants against seismic and flooding hazards.
    [Show full text]
  • ONR Quarterly Report Q2 2011/12 (July 11 – September 11)
    Office for Nuclear Regulation An agency of HSE Cover Hinkley Point C At a glance Programmes update News Stress tests Sites we regulate ONR Quarterly Report Q2 2011/12 (July 11 – September 11) next u ONR Quarterly Report Office for Nuclear Regulation Q2 2011/12 (July 11 – September 11) An agency of HSE Cover Hinkley Point C At a glance Programmes update News Stress tests Sites we regulate Hinkley Point C: what it means for ONR The consideration of the nuclear site licence n July, ONR received the first environmental protection and issues raised in Mike Weightman’s Isite licence application for a waste management. interim and final report into the application for Hinkley Point C is an important new nuclear power station in 20 As discussed by Paul Brown accident at Fukushima. milestone for ONR as we strive towards our years and it’s important that we in last quarter’s report, ONR has Looking at how this fits with reflect upon and celebrate how moved to programme working, the Hinkley Point site licence vision of becoming we got here. demonstrating how it can meet application, ONR expects the a world-leading The application from NNB the challenges presented by whole process to be complete Generation Company, or NNB new build regulation: working ahead of NNB GenCo’s plans to nuclear GenCo, is one of a number of effectively and efficiently, while start building the main reactor regulator, proposed new nuclear power being open and transparent. structures in 2013. But once stations in the UK. Over the next Being open and transparent is again, this depends on us writes Director 18 months we will assess NNB at the heart of ONR’s vision and being satisfied with the reactor of Nuclear GenCo’s suitability, capability it is with that same transparency designs through GDA.
    [Show full text]
  • DELIVERING ONSITE NUCLEAR PROJECTS: on TIME and on BUDGET 26–27 September 2017, Renaissance Manchester City Centre Hotel, Manchester
    SAVE 10% 4 AUGUSTOFFER ENDS 2017 DELIVERING ONSITE NUCLEAR PROJECTS: ON TIME AND ON BUDGET KEY SPEAKERS INCLUDE: Timothy Johnson, Ops Manager, Investment Delivery EDF Energy Generation Phil Kruse, Environmental Technical Manager & Radioactive Waste Adviser NNB Generation Company, EDF Energy Tim Cook, Major Projects and Programme Manager (PFCS and Infrastructure) Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Craig Lavender, Head of EPR Regulation – New Reactors Programme Office for Nuclear Regulation Nuclear Power Committee, Ann McCall, Waste Management Director Power Industries Division Radioactive Waste Management Ltd. Conference Paul Dundee, Project Manager 26–27 September 2017 Magnox Ltd. Renaissance Manchester City Centre Hotel, Ron Hibbert, DSRL Senior Project Manager Manchester Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd. SUPPORTING ORGANISATIONS: EVENT PARTNER: Save 10% before 4 August 2017 www.imeche.org/nuclearprojects2017 DELIVERING ONSITE NUCLEAR PROJECTS: ON TIME AND ON BUDGET 26–27 September 2017, Renaissance Manchester City Centre Hotel, Manchester AS ONE OF 15 COUNTRIES DEVELOPING NUCLEAR ATTEND THIS EVENT TO: ENERGY, THE UK INDUSTRY IS • Network with project directors INVESTING £37 BILLION INTO and managers, architects NUCLEAR NEW BUILD. AS NEW and designers from licensees PROJECTS ARE UNDERTAKEN, and operators as well as key IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE contractors and suppliers NUCLEAR ENGINEERING • Gain lessons learned from COMMUNITY LEARNS THE projects implemented by key LESSONS FROM EXISTING licensees and operators including NNB Generation Company, SITES AND DECOMMISSIONING EDF Energy, Dounreay Site PROGRAMMES. Restoration Ltd., Magnox Ltd., Delivering Onsite Nuclear Projects conference NuGeneration Ltd., EDF Energy Generation and Horizon Nuclear will provide attendees with best practice and Power successful strategies to shape new projects while reducing time and cost.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is This Document?
    Proposed Scheme Overview This document is an overview of the Stage Two Proposed Scheme Consultation document. To comment on the consultation, for more information on our consultation events or to access the full document please visit the consultation website, www.nugenconsultation.com An introduction from NuGen’s CEO What is this I had the privilege of becoming document? Chief Executive a year ago, and one of my first acts was The Moorside Project aims to build to visit NuGen’s team at a a nuclear power station, to the north consultation exhibition event and west of the Sellafield Site in West Cumbria (called the Moorside Site). It at Workington. will include other developments such The team was exactly half way through a as: worker accommodation at Corkickle, programme of consultation exhibitions Mirehouse and Egremont; rail works and were having some great conversations at the Moorside Site, at St Bees and with people from communities across between Corkickle and Mirehouse; West Cumbria and beyond about what highway improvement works at various the Moorside Project would mean to them. sites and other development at the We had over 1,800 people through the doors in our first stage of consultation, Moorside Site, including a Marine Off- visiting both our travelling exhibition and the Moorside Information Centre Loading Facility. Construction work will in the Civic Hall in Whitehaven. We’re grateful that over 750 of those people take place from 2018. took the time to give us written feedback on our proposals. This overview aims to provide a summary We’re now returning with our second stage of consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitachi's Involvement in Use of Nuclear Power Generation To
    Hitachi Review Vol. 62 (2013), No. 1 70 Hitachi’s Involvement in Use of Nuclear Power Generation to Resolve Energy Issues Masahiko Nakane OVERVIEW: Despite significant changes in the status of nuclear power Takashi Masui generation around the world since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Masahiro Hamamoto Nuclear Power Station of Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc., considerations such as global environmental problems and energy security mean that many Mizuki Igarashi countries still have plans to introduce nuclear power under study or in progress. Regarding the adoption of nuclear power generation by countries that are pursuing the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Hitachi is collaborating with its BWR technology partner, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC, to make further safety improvements and to work toward resolving global energy issues. INTRODUCTION generation. However, because the Ignalina power WHEN the future of nuclear power is considered, plant used the same light-water-cooled, graphite- factors such as the shale gas (unconventional natural moderated reactors as the Chernobyl Nuclear Power gas) revolution in the USA and changes in policy Plant, Unit 1 was shutdown in late 2004 and Unit 2 in by national governments after the accident at the late 2009 as part of the terms of the nation’s accession Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station mean that to the European Union (EU), and the reactors are circumstances have changed significantly from the “nuclear renaissance” that people spoke of only a few years ago. Nevertheless, highly economic nuclear 0 30 60 km power has a contribution to make to society and still Planned site for construction of retains an important role as a way of overcoming Visaginas Nuclear Power Plant global challenges such as global environmental problems and energy security.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Nuclear Terms
    BURGES SALMON LLP Glossary of Nuclear Terms June 2015 Edited by Gareth Davies Editor: Gareth Davies, Davies Nuclear Associates Ltd Co-Editors: Thomas Carpenter, Burges Salmon LLP Sarah Raby, Burges Salmon LLP Sponsor: Ian Salter, Head of Nuclear Practice, Burges Salmon LLP Glossary of Nuclear Terms Peer Reviewers for 2015: Ian Bonnett, Davies Nuclear Associates Ltd Adrian Bull, National Nuclear Laboratory Samantha Dancy, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Tristram Denton, Hitachi Europe Ltd Anna Ellis, Frazer-Nash Consultancy Neil Foreman, Centronic Ltd Dr Justin Goldberg, Jacobs Engineering (UK) Limited Colin Goodrum, LDA Design Peter Haslam, Nuclear Industry Association Allison Hunt, National Skills Academy for Nuclear Stuart Hunt, EDF Energy Terry Kelly, Cavendish Nuclear David Lawson, GD Energy Services Mark Liddiard, HR Wallingford Jean Llewellyn, National Skills Academy for Nuclear Amanda MacMillan, Horizon Nuclear Power John McNamara, NuGeneration Ltd Melanie Sachar, EDF Energy Terry Selby, NuGeneration Ltd Dr Tim Stone, former Expert Chair, Office for Nuclear Development Chris Williams, Nuvia Version Date: June 2015 © 2015 Burges Salmon LLP www.burges-salmon.com All rights reserved. Any use or reproduction of this Glossary, whether in whole or part, must clearly attribute authorship and acknowledge that © remains with Burges Salmon LLP. The moral rights of Burges Salmon LLP have been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Disclaimer: This Glossary is intended as a general guide only. The information and opinions which it contains are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be treated as a substitute for legal advice containing particular situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Sector Report
    Nuclear Sector Report 1. This is a report for the House of Commons Committee on Exiting the European Union following the motion passed at the Opposition Day debate on 1 November, which called on the Government to provide the Committee with impact assessments arising from the sectoral analysis it has conducted with regards to the list of 58 sectors referred to in the answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239. 2. As the Government has already made clear, it is not the case that 58 sectoral impact assessments exist. The Government’s sectoral analysis is a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum. This report brings together information about the sector in a way that is accessible and informative. Some reports aggregate some sectors in order to either avoid repetition of information or because of the strong interlinkages between some of these sectors. 3. This report covers: a description of the sector, the current EU regulatory regime, existing frameworks for how trade is facilitated between countries in this sector, and sector views. It does not contain commercially-, market- or negotiation-sensitive information. Description of Sector 4. The UK has been a member of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) since joining the European Common Market in 1973. On 29 March 2017 the Prime Minister notified the European Commission that the UK would be leaving the European Union and consequently the Euratom Community. The Euratom Treaty, which covers civil nuclear only, has a number of elements which include nuclear research and training, the provision of nuclear safeguards inspection and assurance, the Euratom Supply Agency, free movement of nuclear goods and nuclear workers, nuclear health and safety, and nuclear agreements with third countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2011
    Scottish and Southern Energy plc For further information In producing this report we have chosen production methods which aim to minimise the impact on our about SSE, please contact: environment. The papers used – Revive 50:50 Silk and Kaskad – are manufactured from sustainable sources. Scottish and Southern Energy plc Revive 50:50 Silk also contains 50% recovered waste. Both the paper mills and printer involved in this production are Scottish and Southern Energy plc Corporate Affairs environmentally accredited with ISO 14001. The printer Annual Report 2011 Inveralmond House is also registered as a Carbon Neutral company. 200 Dunkeld Road Perth PH1 3AQ UK T: +44 (0)1738 456000 E: [email protected] www.sse.com Annual Report 2011 Follow the latest news from SSE on Twitter at: www.twitter.com/sse Registered in Scotland No. 117119 STOCK CODE 008235 Contents Financial statements 78 Independent auditors’ report Overview 79 Consolidated income statement 80 Statement of comprehensive income 01 Introduction 81 Balance sheets 02 The energy sector in Great Britain 82 Statement of changes in equity 05 The energy sector in Ireland 84 Cash flow statements 06 SSE – a balanced range of 86 Notes on the financial statements energy businesses 86 1. Significant accounting policies 08 Chairman and Chief Executive 95 2. Reclassification of comparative Questions and answers The stunning photograph amounts used on the cover of this year’s 96 3. Segmental information Strategy 99 4. Other operating income and expense Annual Report was taken at 10 Why invest in SSE? 100 5. Exceptional items and certain SSE’s Drumderg wind farm in remeasurements Perthshire by award-winning Group performance 101 6.
    [Show full text]
  • New Nuclear Power – Global Development
    New nuclear power – Global development 2016-01-20 Confidentiality - None (C1) 1 New nuclear power - Global development | Daniel Westlén | 2016-01-20 China • 70 % of Chinas energy from coal • Half the world consumption of coal • Urgent need to improve air quality 2 New nuclear power - Global development | Daniel Westlén | 2016-01-20 China • Very ambitious expansion plans • 30 commersial reactors in operation (26,7 GWe) - 140 GWe PWR capacity 2040 • 24 under construction (24,1 GWe) - 6-8 new units 2015-2020 • Significant R&D – aiming for closed fuel cycle - 10 units per year beyond 2020 - Domestic supply chain • First fast reactors being built 2020 - Major FR expansion anticipated 3 New nuclear power - Global development | Daniel Westlén | 2016-01-20 United Kingdom • 2/3 of electricity from fossil fuels - Growing fuel imports • 15 reactors in operation - 8900 MW - 14 GCR – located in pairs - 1 PWR – Sizewell B • Energy policy focused on CO2 - Energy poverty is a serious concern • Ten sites identified as suitable for nuclear new build before 2025 • Generic design assessments - AP1000, EPR, and Hitachi’s ABWR • Three companies with firm ongoing projects - EdF - Hinkley point and Sizewell - Horizon - Oldbury and Wylfa - NuGeneration – Moorside 4 New nuclear power - Global development | Daniel Westlén | 2016-01-20 Photo courtesy of Horizon Nuclear Power Finland • Four reactors in operation – Olkiluoto 12 and Loviisa 12 • Olkiluoto 3 under construction • Hanhikivi 1 (Fennovoima) nearing construction start • Significant import dependence - >25
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Management Team
    Nuclear Working Group 100311 Item 7 DECC CONSULTATION ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE UK’S PLUTONIUM STOCKS: PROPOSED RESPONSE EXECUTIVE MEMBER: Councillor Elaine Woodburn LEAD OFFICER: Steve Smith REPORT AUTHOR: Steve Smith Executive Summary 1. Government is consulting on options for the future management of the UK’s 112 tonne stockpile of civil separated plutonium stored mainly at Sellafield. Government considers the costs and benefits of three options (a) continued storage, (b) immobilisation and disposal to a geological facility, and (c) recycling through fabrication into mixed plutonium and uranium oxide fuel (MOX). Government says it is minded to take a ‘preliminary policy view’ in favour of the MOX option and ‘then taking forward work to progressively address the practical issues of implementation.’ 2. Government asks for comments on its preliminary policy view and any factors it may have overlooked in weighing the options. This report considers the Government’s case and supports Government’s ‘preliminary policy view’ and urges progress towards practical implementation. It agrees with Government that ‘MOX fuel fabrication is a proven and available technology that offers greater certainty of success.’ It notes NDA data identifying a MOX route as the least cost option for managing the UK’s civil plutonium stockpile. The report also urges consideration by Government of the development of additional reactors on land adjacent to Sellafield and NuGeneration Ltd sites to utilise MOX fuel. Such a commitment would avoid the need for significant MOX fuel transportation, provide for increased security, and further support the development of Britain’s Energy Coast. 3. The terms of a response to Government is set out in Appendix A which, subject to Members views could form a joint submission with Cumbria County Council, Allerdale BC, and Britain’s Energy Coast (West Cumbria).
    [Show full text]