Tordess Oeeupiedi
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE SCOTTISH CAMPAIGN TO RESIST THE ATOMIC MENACE,2 AINSLIE PLACE,E~INBURGH.031-2?5 7752 ISSN 0140- 7340 No 8 October/November 1978 lOp TORDESS OEEUPIEDI ---protesters rebuild cottage---- On 30th September the date on which the tenant farmers on the Torness site gave up their land to the SSEB, the 15 members of the Torness Alliance moved on. Supported by a group of similar size outwith the site; they immediately began to rebuild the derilict 'Half Moon' cottage, which is seen as a base for the occupation. This m·ove, to non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, was not taken without careful thought and planning.Clearly Mr. Millan, the Secretary of State, has decided to turn a deaf ear to any objections to Torness - whether they come from anyi- nuclear groups or the Labour · controlled Lothian Regional Council~ Thus, in the spirit of the Torness declaration, non-violent direct action is the only option availabl e if the power sta!on is to be stopped. DE COMMISSIONING FRIENDLY THE HIDDEN PROBLEMS Those participating (from all over Britain) British nuclear This statement, however, carefully planned this companies have deliberately flies i n the face of action; and of necessit y played down the difficulties evidence , both from t he trained in non-violent involved in scrapping atomic United States and the A. E.A's techniques. This planning pl ant. own sc-ientists. Their has paid off the l ocal report s claim t hat outworn community has rallied round According to a r.ecent plants are highly radioact ive in support and materials for 'Guardian' repor.t the Atomic and should be l eft for the reconstruction of the Ener gy Authority "is certain 100- 150 years for the cottage have been readily · that i t could demolish a r adi at ion t o " cool down" ma.de available; and the· nuclear react or local police have been comprehensivel y enough to b efoo=~=~]J univer sally friendly. restore the sit e to agricultural use". ~~ ----- - ~ rl '"Yf'W . fU" . UY (continued on page 7) . ·~ [ 1 1 Dlgitlud 2017 ; ... ....... ..... --~~~ , This is no COSTS HIDDEN These latest figures are simple surface pollution - a far cry from predictions in Cobalt 60 is impregnated into Official statements have the early 1950s when nuclear the 1300 tonnes of cooling also hidden the cost of stations were first built. pipes, making chemical decommissioning reactors. In Some early publicity went so decontamination impossible. its latest annual r~port the far as to declare that South of Scotland Electricity nuclear energy would become Chemical agents can, as Board gives the cost of too cheap to meter. a first stage, be used to nuclear electricity as 1.227p scrub down the exposed per unit, a large increase on In those heady days surfaces, but the reactor the 1976/77 figure and only designers paid scant must then be decommissioned marginally cheaper than attention to the problems of by one of three methods: electricity generated by decommissioning nuclear coal, oil and gas turbine. facilities. Only in the past two years have they been DISMANTLEMENT As revealed in the last fully documented and a paper, 'Energy Bulletin' this published in 1977 by the Dismantlement involves seemingly precise calculation United Kingdom Atomic Energy the total removal of the completely ignores the future Authority admits that "costs plant to radioactive waste cost of decommissioning have not been discussed since burial grounds. The land is nuclear reactors. studies in more depth will be then restored to its original required before valid condition and released for SCRAM has recalculated estimates can be derived". unrestricted use. the cost of nuclear The difficulties must be electricity adding in the faced ve~y soon - small The radioactivity is a SSEB's allocation of 6.7 reactors have already been major hazard for demolition million pounds per year for closed down and the first crews and much of the cutting future decommissioning. large commercial stations are of reactor parts would need Nuclear power is now seen to now nearing .the end of their to be done by be .!!!2!!. expensive (see table) lifespan. · remote-controlled equipment than electricity from fossil underwater a costly and fuel stations. RADIOACTIVE time-consuming business. EXPENSIVE A commercial nuclear MOTHBALLING station has a working life of Yet even this figure is 20-25 years. During this At the other extreme, an underestimate of the true time its steel cooling pipes mothballing simply entails price of nuclear generated are subject to intense taking out the fuel and electricity. It hides the radiation from the core which radioactive waste and placing cost of repairing Hunterston partly transforms the steel the plant in protective B station (following a into radioactive Cobalt 60. storage. A mothballed seawater leakage last year)t The Cobalt has a pal£ life of station must be constantly direct Governement subsidies 5.2 years and takes some guarded to prevent sabotage and expenditure on 100-150 years to decay or vandalism, and undergo reprocessing waste fuel. If substantially. annual radiological surveys these are added then the cost and periodic maintenance. becomes 1.8p per unit, some S.S.EB·s calculatedoost: 30% more expensive than Coal .etc. 1.332p ENTOMBMENT electricity from traditional Nuclear 1.227p sources. A compromise method is Add decommissioning : entombmentt which consists o'f Coal etc. 1 342p sealing the reactor with Nuclear 1.365p concrete or steel after all Add· extras : the liquid waste, fuel and Nuclear l.Sp surface contamination have been removed. Since the radioactive core would be encased the plant would not not require an elaborate security system. It wou1d, however, need annual surveillance for possible radioactive leaks and periodic maintainance. The last two methods are merely holding operations, eventually the. reactor must be demolished. The present plan of both British and US PROBLEMS Nearer home the SSEB has plant operators is to revised its estimates for maintain and watch over the Secondly similar decommissioning - this year closed plant for up to 150 estimates have ignored, or it allocated 6.7 million years before finally played down, the cost of pounds for future costs, dismantling it. burying some 5,000 tons of compared with 500,000 pounds contaminated steel and for 1976-77. This is the No comprehensive study concrete from each reactor. amount omitted from their of the cost of such an A recent British report published comparison with operation has been carried admits that the radioactivity traditionally generated out in Britain, but at a "coupled with the massive electricity. recent press conference Dr bulk of the waste poses major Marsham of the UKAEA disposal problems." Despite the palliative estimated that decom- press statements from the missioning would cost 8-15% Finally surveys in the UKAEA, nuclear scientists are of the capital price of a u.s. have consistently now seriously concerned about reactor. For an Advanced Gas understated decommissioning the cost and technical Reactor, such as that costs. The US Energy problems of scrapping proposed for Torness, Research and Development reactors. It seems .certain, decommissioning would thus Administration predicted that though, that monuments to cost 60 million pounds at it would spend 3 billion their endeavours, made from today's prices. dollars over the next 100 radioactive steel and years to decommission its concrete, will be standing There is good evidence plants, yet a private around our coastline for many that this may underestimate contractor has given an years to come. the difficulties involved. estimate of 4 billion dollars None of the present to decommission one generation of reactors . were installation alone (the designed with decommissioning Hanford facility, with 9 in mind and the tangle of reactors and ancilliary steel and concrete which plant) - excluding disposal makes up the heart of a of waste. reactor may require to be dismantled by specialised equipment such as plasma arc cutters. Praise is not however We are committed to • universal. Our subscribers halting the construction of within the nuclear industry Scotland's latest nuclear Editorial (SSEB, CEGB, UKAEA and BNFL) power station st Torness in have not been exactly vocal East Lothian and to do that in their support. we will need all the help we can get and that you can Many of our sympathisers afford to give. have ·also criticised us in issue of the Energy various ways and hence We must extend the Bulletin is the eighth. That influenced the Bulletin. As Bulletin's readership and it means we've been going for we have said before, all must rest on a secure sixteen months. When a new criticism or comments are financial basis. (The publication enters its second more than welcome. Similarly current price, for example, year or asks for any information of nuclear does not even cover the cost subscriptions to be renewed, activities in your area ot of production.) So, again, we it is a real test of its anything of interest that you appeal to you. Please show popularity and effectiveness. come across - please let us the Bulletin to your friends, know - or better still write buy extra copies to resell, Those of us who put an article about it yourself! send in articles or together the Bulletin have The Bulletin is as much a donations. We cannot survive been more than encouraged by vehicle for your ideas as for without your practical, the feedback. Most people ours. financial and moral support. have resubscribed (many with especial generosity) and most Now is by no means the All correspondence have praised the content and time for complacency. It is should be addressed to format of the Bulletin.