DOCSLIB.ORG

Britain's Nuclear Dustbin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Britain's Nuclear Dustbin --CoMMENT ESCRIBED by T ony Blair, Labour • s AGRs, particularly Hartlepool, Dungeness Shadow Energy Spokesperson, as ••a and Heysham A. Dhumiliating farce," last months decision to abandon the privatisation of the Magnox Why is it that investors who were reluctant reactors was mostly overshadowed by acres to stump up the costs of decommissioning of comment on Mrs Thatcher's botched the youngest Magnox station at Wylfa in cabinet reshuffle. the year 2002, can be expected to foot the bill for decommissioning the oldest AGRs at This "most expensive exercise in the politi­ Hunterston and Hinkley only 5 years later? cal history of clearing one's desk" will, ac­ cording to Blair, cost the taxpayer at least £4,500m, for the decommissioning, fuel CHEDULE 1~ in the Privatisation Bill reprocessing and eventual site clearance of allows the Government to make all nine Magnox stations. John Large, a S£2,500m available to meet nuclear consultant for the local authority objectors liabilities in the privatised industry. Parkin- at the Hinkley Inquiry, put the figure at a son told the Commons this money would be staggering £ 15,000m. for "unforeseeable costs arising from changes in Government policy.•• But in the In a widely acclaimed speech, Blair asserted Lords it was described more loosely as a that the •motivation for this is quite fund for factors •outside the industry's con­ transparent - that [Parkinson] will sacrifice trol.• anything, including normal commercial prudence, the interests of the taxpayer and What this package amounts to is an at­ the consumer and the future energy needs tempt to partially privatise the nuclear of this country, provided that, above all power stations while the privatised com­ else, he can sell his privatisation to the panies incur few if any risks - the risks City." all remain with the taxpayer. It remains to be seen whether the City will agree that the attempt has succeeded. HE new Energy Secretary, John Wakeham will have a tough job con­ Tvincing a sceptical public that the deci· N THE age of the 'Green Consumer' sion is anything more than an attempt to the Government has made a tactical appease the Tories• friends in the City. I error in rejecting the Lord's amend-- Power in Europe, a Financial Times Busi­ ment which would have given the ness Information magazine, said in an electricity Regulator the power to force editorial at the beginning of July that the the private companies to conserve energy. Treasury were concerned that nuclear power It is now clear that a significant minority would jeopardise the whole flotation, of the British electorate attach a high im­ whereas the Department of Energy wanted portance to environmental issues. The all nuclear stations included in the sell-off. Government, having squandered an important opportunity to prove the sincerity of their What has been arrived at is obviously a statements about global warming, have left compromise worked out at Cabinet level. their electricity privatisation strategy on The question is whether it will be enough very shaky environmental ground. to convince the City. "Opinion among UK financial analysts and fund managers is So far, electricity privatisation has failed more or less unanimous in rejecting the to capture the public imagination. But, by government's nuclear proposals as unwork­ the same token, the Government has been able,• says Power in Europe. largely unsuccessful in convincing the public that nuclear power has a role to play in John Wakeham will now have to convince solving the Greenhouse Effect. It's up to us the City that the AGR stations and the to make sure that the environmental con­ yet-to-be-built PWRs will be worth the risk. sequences of privatisation spark off a public But the logic which dictated that the Mag­ storm against nuclear power, which is so nox reactors should remain in public owner­ fierce that, in the image conscious 90s, no ship should also be applied to most of the private company will be able to weather it. 2 SCRAM 72 CoNTENTs Conunent 2 News 4-7 Features 8-21 __-pATURES Safe Energy 22-25 Independent radiation 8 monitoring Reviews 26-27 Paul Watts proposes a system for coordinating Little Black Rabbit 28 and collating the results of the various independent groups that have sprung up around the country. Least cost planning 10 lan Brown outlines the success of least cost planning used in utilities around the world. Britains nuclear dustbin 12 Stan Openshaw co-author of a new book on nuclear waste dumping assess the geogra­ phical problems posed by nuclear waste. Legal screw turns on Sellafield 14 Martin Day, the lawyer representing Sellafield leukaemia victims, discusses the Legal Test cases with SCRAM. Windscale fallout 15 Core (Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment) also offer practical advice to Sellafield victims. here they discuss their activities with SCRAM. Where there's muck there's gas 16 Mike Townsley examines the potential for producing energy from landftll waste sites. Arnott untangles Webb 18 Don Amott profiles contravertial American scientist and UK inquiry objector Dr Richard Webb. FRG aid for Pakistan's bomb. 20 Nicola Liebert examines German aid in developing Pakistans nuclear capability. Views expressed in articles appearing in 1bls Journal is produced fOr the British Anti·Nuclear and Safe 1b subscribe to the SCRAM Safe Energy this journal are not neceuarily those of Energy movements by the Scottish Csmpmgn to Resist the Journal see the subscription tOnn on the SCRAM. Atomic Menace (SCRAM). back page. New: Pete Roche We welcome contributions of articles, news, graphics and SCRAM Safe Ener&r. Mike Townaley photographs. 11 Forth Slreet Layout: Ol'aham. Stein Edinburgh EH1 SI.E Cover drawiq: WU1i LaD~ Deadline fOr feature articles for the next Issue: 4 September. Tel: 031557 4283/4 ISSN 0140 7340 Bi-monthly (Please try to keep contributions to 800 words per page.) Fax: 031557 5448 Aug!Jst/September '89 3 ONEWS~--------------------------------~ NRPB's assessment of the dose to plutonium could be one factor which the public both failed to provide a Sellafield, Dounreay, Aldermaston For the third time the Committee clue as to why the number of can­ and Burghfield all have in common. on Medical Aspects of Radiation in cers are significantly higher. The Exposure in adults could theoreti­ the Environment (COMARE) have authorised and accidental atmos­ cally lead to the induction of can­ found a high incidence of childhood pheric discharges are "most cer in children. leukaemia near nuclear installations. unlikely" to provide an explanation The Department of Health have But the cause of the excess is still because they are too low. And an accepted the· Committee's recom­ a mystery. "unknown pathway" involving liquid mendations for a wide-ranging study The Government-appointed com­ discharges is "most unlikely to into the health of children of mittee of independent scientists was cause an increase in radiation levels nuclear workers; detailed childhood asked to investigate whether there sufficient to explain the observed cancer registration to see how the is an unusually high incidence of increase in childhood cancer." spread of the disease compares with childhood cancer in West Berkshire COMARE find themselves unable the distribution of nuclear install­ and North Hampshire (the area to exclude "some other mechanism ations; and the measurement of around Aldermaston and Burghfield of radiation exposure". They suggest household dust around Aldermaston and if so whether this was as­ that the exposure of workers to and Burghfield. sociated with environmental radioac­ tivity. Leukaemia and other cancers at ages 0-4. 5-14. and 0-14 in \\'est Berkshire and Basingstoke/Nonh Hampshire District Health Authorities by distance of the electora1 ward of residence from a nuclear establishment. COMARE have previously found "evidence of a raised incidence of Distance of electoral wards from a nuclear establishment Comparison of "'10 km leukaemia at both Sellafield and wilh >IOkm Dounreay" whic.h tends to "support Diagnosis "'IOkm >IOkm the hypothesis that some feature of Age Source and 95% Time Period Number of Number of Ra1io of confidence these two plants lead to an in­ registrations Registralio registrations Regis1n11ior Registration intCrval creased risk of leukaemia in young ralio' ratiol ratios" people living in the vicinity." Observed Expec~ed' Observed Expeeled1 Like the Sellafield leukaemias, 0-4 Roman Leukaemia 29 14.4 2.01 24 19.6 1.23 1.64' 0.9210 2.94 the high incidence around the two .rill 1972-$5 CCRG Other cancers 30 19.4 1.55 33 26.3 1.25 1.24 0.73to 2.09 nuclear weapons plants was ex­ 1971-& amined by the Yorkshire TV team Combined Tola!Canccr 59 33.8 1.75 57 45.9 1.24 1.41' 0.9610 2.06 led by James Cutler in their 1985 Data3 1971-$5 film "Inside Britain's Bomb". COMARE looked at three studies 5-14 Roman Leukeamia 12 14.2 0.85 24 21.2 1.13 0.75 0.34 to 1.56 .rill 1972-$5 by Roman et al. (London School of CCRG Other cancers 31 2&.1 1.10 49 42.0 1.17 0.94 0.58 to 1.51 Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and 1971-& the Royal Berkshire Hospital), the. Combined Total Cancer 43 42.3 1.02 73 63.1 1.16 0.88 0.5910 1.30 Office of Population Censuses and Dala 1971-$5 Surveys and the Childhood Cancer 0-14 Roman Leukaemia 41 2&.6 1.43 48 40.8 1.18 1.22 0.78to 1.89 Research Group in Oxford. et Ill 1972-$5 From this data the Committee CCRG Other cancers 61 47.5 1.2& 82 68.3 1.20 1.07 0.75 IO 1.51 concluded, there was "evidence of 1971-82 r a i sed r e g i s t r a t i on r a t es f or Combined Total Canc:er 102 76.1 1.34 130 109.1 1.19 1.12 0.&6 to 1.47 childhood leukaemia and other Dala 1971-SS childhood cancers in the vicinity of 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing the Risk of Terrorist Attacks on Nuclear Facilities Summary
    POST Report 222 July 2004 Assessing the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities Summary Assessing the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities July 2004 Report 222 Summary The events of September 11th 2001 heightened concerns over the potential for terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities. The purpose of this report is to provide Parliamentarians with an overview of what is publicly known about the risks and the consequences of such an attack, either at a facility in the UK, or overseas, with very direct impacts in the UK. This report identifies the main issues of concern according to reports in the public domain, and highlights areas where understanding is limited due to lack of publicly available information. The key points made in this report are as follows: • There is sufficient information in the public domain to identify possible ways terrorists might bring about a release of radioactive material from a nuclear facility. However this information is not sufficient to draw conclusions on the likelihood of a successful attack, or the size and nature of any release. • After September 11th 2001 additional protection measures have been put in place to increase security and to strengthen emergency planning at and around nuclear facilities. However, full details are not in the public domain. • Nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand some forms of terrorist attack, such as large aircraft impact, but existing safety and security regimes provide some defence. • Published reports suggest that, in a worst case scenario, the impact of large aircraft on certain facilities could cause a significant release of radioactive material with effects over a wide area.
    [Show full text]
  • Reactor Report, Section A
    Nuclear Reactor Hazards Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century Report Prepared for International April 2005 Nuclear Reactor Hazards Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century Report Prepared for International by Helmut Hirsch, Oda Becker, Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt April 2005 Nuclear Reactor Hazards 3 About the Report’s Authors: Dr. Helmut Hirsch, Scientific Consultant, Hannover, Germany: [email protected] Lead Author, as responsible for sections, A, B.1 C, D.1.i, iii, iv Dr Helmut Hirsch is a self-employed consultant for nuclear matters and was the founder and staff scientist of Gruppe Ökologie Hannover. In his career he has held a variety of posts and commissions including: - Since1990 a Member of “Forum für Atomfragen” (FAF), an expert commission providing advice in nuclear matters to the Austrian Federal Minister for the Environment: In 2004: Participation in study concerning the risk of terror attacks to the Grafenrheinfeld spent fuel interim storage facility (planned; Germany), for the City of Schweinfurt, Germany: In 2003: Participation in a study of possible hazards due to the spent fuel storage facility at Skull Valley, Utah (USA): Since 2002 participating, as nuclear expert, in the Technical Support for the Monitoring Process for the Czech NPP Temelín, working for the Austrian Federal Environment Agency (Vienna): Between 1991 – 1998: Member of expert commission providing advice to the state government of Lower Saxony (Germany) in nuclear matters. Oda Becker: Scientific Consultant, Hannover, Germany: [email protected] Author of Sections: B.2, D.2 Oda Becker is a physicist, who has been working in the field of nuclear safety for many years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reality of the Fukushima Radioactive Water Crisis Shaun Burnie Greenpeace Germany
    2020.10. Stemming the tide 2020 The reality of the Fukushima radioactive water crisis Shaun Burnie Greenpeace Germany Greenpeace Germany 1 © Shaun Burnie / Greenpeace Thanks also to Dr. Ian Fairlie and Dr. David Boilley for advice and comment. Note on text content: throughout this report we refer to Greenpeace. This refers to Greenpeace Japan and Greenpeace East Asia, unless otherwise stated. Published in October 2020 by Greenpeace East Asia and Greenpeace Japan 2 The reality of the Fukushima radioactive water crisis Contents Overview 05 Main findings 06 Current status 08 Reactor pressure vessel (RVP) cooling 08 The problem of groundwater/rainwater entering reactor buildings 09 Failure of the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) 10 Poor technology choices and the failure of ALPS 11 Adsorbers 12 pH adjustments in relation to water chemistry 12 Secondary processing in ALPS 2020 13 Strontium-90 and other hazards 14 Carbon-14 in the contaminated water – an admission 15 Flaws in tritium risk analysis 17 Failure to address the tritium problem 20 Long-term storage as an alternative to discharge 21 A clear case for pressing the pause button 24 Human rights under threat 25 Conclusion 27 Appendix 29 Endnotes 30 Author: Reviewers: Editor: Shaun Burnie, ([email protected]) Kazue Suzuki, Mari Chang, Caroline Roberts Senior Nuclear Specialist, Greenpeace Hideyuki Ban, Daniel Simons Germany Greenpeace Germany 3 © Shaun Burnie / Greenpeace 4 The reality of the Fukushima radioactive water crisis Overview Two years after our first report on the crisis,1 more than a million tons of radioactive water is still sitting in tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, site of the catastrophic meltdown in March 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Monitor #690
    JUNE 26, 2009 | No. 690 THORP, LIVING ON A KNIFE-EDGE, TO BE CLOSED FOR SEVEN MONTHS Sellafield Ltd, the company that operates THORP (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) under contract to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), is facing yet another extended shut-ddown of THORP - this time for an estimated 7 months - when the only High Level THORP, LIVING ON A KNIFE- EDGE, TO BE CLOSED FOR Waste Evaporator configured to deal with THORP's high level waste SEVEN MONTHS 1 is taken off line for a major investigation. "NEW" NUCLEAR REACTORS, SAME OLD STORY 3 (690.5959) CORE - The closure comes dependent on the regular and reliable as little surprise given that Company operation of A & B. Their unreliability in GERMAN ENVIRONMENT reports and presentations over the last recent years however has resulted in MINISTER: NUCLEAR year have clearly anticipated the need to Sellafield Ltd having to place orders for 2 INDUSTRY IS LYING 5 take action on the plant's operational new Evaporators (D & E). Of similar AREVA AND EDF: BUSINESS future because of increasing problems in design to C, the first of the new PROSPECTS AND RISKS IN managing the dangerous high level Evaporators is not expected to come NUCLEAR ENERGY 6 waste (HLW) produced not only by into operation before 2014, the project THORP, but also by the Magnox currently being only at the stage of site SWEDISH NUCLEAR reprocessing plant (B205) and the foundation work. The original cost of BP INDUSTRY WANTS REACTOR effluents from the site's Vitrification plant 90 million is understood to have WASTE FACILITY AT (WVP).
    [Show full text]