DOCSLIB.ORG

Possible Toxic Effects from the Nuclear Reprocessing Plants at Sellafield (Uk) and Cap De La Hague (France)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Possible Toxic Effects from the Nuclear Reprocessing Plants at Sellafield (Uk) and Cap De La Hague (France) STOA Scientific and Technological Options Assessment POSSIBLE TOXIC EFFECTS FROM THE NUCLEAR REPROCESSING PLANTS AT SELLAFIELD (UK) AND CAP DE LA HAGUE (FRANCE) A first contribution to the scientific debate 1.) Introduction: Letter to the reader by the Chairman of the STOA Panel on the decision taken by the Panel on 23 October 2001 2.) Study by WISE - Paris 3.) Evaluation reports by experts Luxembourg, November 2001 Directorate General for Research EN EN Title: POSSIBLE TOXIC EFFECTS FROM THE NUCLEAR REPROCESSING PLANTS AT SELLAFIELD AND CAP DE LA HAGUE Workplan Ref.: EP/IV/A/STOA/2000/17/01 Publisher: European Parliament Directorate General for Research Directorate A The STOA Programme Authors: WISE - Paris, Study director: Schneider, M., Study team: Coeytaux, X., Faïd, Y.B., Marignac, Y., Rouy, E., Thompson, G. (IRSS, Cambridge, USA) Fairlie, I., Lowry, D., Sumner, D. (Independent consultants) Editor: STOA Unit Date: November 2001 PE number: PE 303.110 This document is a working Document for the 'STOA Panel'. It is not an official publication of STOA. This document does not necessarily represent the views of the European Parliament POSSIBLE TOXIC EFFECTS FROM THE NUCLEAR REPROCESSING PLANTS AT SELLAFIELD AND CAP DE LA HAGUE PE 303.110 4 POSSIBLE TOXIC EFFECTS FROM THE NUCLEAR REPROCESSING PLANTS AT SELLAFIELD AND CAP DE LA HAGUE 1. LETTER TO THE READER....................................................................................................3 2. STUDY BY WISE-PARIS ............................................................................................................5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................9 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 9 2. Reprocessing Status and Issues ......................................................................................................... 9 3. International and European Legal Framework ................................................................................... 9 4. Risk Assessment of Radioactive Releases ....................................................................................... 10 5. Case Study Sellafield ...................................................................................................................... 11 6. Case Study La Hague...................................................................................................................... 13 7. Comparative and Cumulative Analysis............................................................................................ 15 8. Alternative Options......................................................................................................................... 15 General Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 16 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................17 1.1. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................................. 17 1.2. BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................... 18 2. REPROCESSING STATUS AND ISSUES.......................................................................................19 2.1. NUCLEAR REPROCESSING ................................................................................................................... 19 2.2. ORIGINS OF REPROCESSING ................................................................................................................ 19 2.3. IMPLICATIONS OF REPROCESSING ....................................................................................................... 20 3. INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK.........................................................21 3.1. INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION AND TREATIES .................................................................................... 21 3.1.1. Major International Bodies........................................................................................................ 21 3.1.2. Major International Conventions............................................................................................... 21 3.1.3. The European Legal Framework And Its Implementation.......................................................... 22 3.1.3.1. Euratom Treaty 22 3.2. MARINE POLLUTION - APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ........................................... 26 4. RISK ASSESSMENT OF RADIOACTIVE RELEASES.....................................................................28 4.1. RELEASES FROM REPROCESSING......................................................................................................... 28 4.2. COLLECTIVE DOSES............................................................................................................................ 28 4.2.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 28 4.2.2. Theoretical Justification............................................................................................................ 28 4.2.3. Global Collective Doses............................................................................................................ 29 4.2.4. Important Radionuclides in Reprocessing Releases ................................................................... 29 4.2.4.1. Carbon-14 (14C) 29 4.2.4.2. Krypton-85 (85Kr) 29 4.2.4.3. Iodine-129 (129I) 29 4.2.4.4. Tritium (3H) 30 4.2.4.5. Technetium-99 (99Tc) 30 4.3. UNCERTAINTIES IN RISK ASSESSMENT................................................................................................ 31 5. CASE STUDY SELLAFIELD ......................................................................................................33 5.1. NATIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 33 5.2. OPERATIONS AT SELLAFIELD .............................................................................................................. 33 5.3. RELEASES FROM SELLAFIELD ............................................................................................................. 34 5.3.1. Air Emissions ........................................................................................................................... 34 5.3.2. Liquid Discharges..................................................................................................................... 35 5.3.3. Technetium Discharges............................................................................................................. 37 5.3.4. Expected Future Sellafield Discharges ...................................................................................... 37 5.4. IMPACT OF SELLAFIELD DISCHARGES ................................................................................................. 39 5.4.1. Plutonium and other actinides near Sellafield ............................................................................ 39 5.4.2. Estimated Doses from Consumption of Irish Sea Fish and Shellfish .......................................... 40 5 PE 303.110 POSSIBLE TOXIC EFFECTS FROM THE NUCLEAR REPROCESSING PLANTS AT SELLAFIELD AND CAP DE LA HAGUE 5.4.3. Doses to Critical Groups........................................................................................................... 40 5.4.4. Environmental Concentrations .................................................................................................. 40 5.4.4.1. Changes between 1989-1999 40 5.4.4.2. Detailed Concentrations in Fish, Shellfish, Sediments and Aquatic Plants 41 5.4.5. Technetium Concentrations....................................................................................................... 41 5.4.5.1. Technetium-99 Concentrations in Marine Samples 41 5.4.5.2. Uptake of Technetium-99 by Marine Plants and Animals 42 5.4.6. Conclusions on Concentrations and Doses ................................................................................ 43 5.5. THE HAZARD POSED BY LIQUID HIGH LEVEL WASTE AT SELLAFIELD................................................. 44 5.6. HEALTH EFFECTS AT SELLAFIELD....................................................................................................... 46 5.6.1. Childhood Leukemia at Seascale............................................................................................... 46 5.6.2. Paternal Pre-Conception Irradiation .......................................................................................... 47 5.6.3. Population Mixing .................................................................................................................... 47 5.6.4. Other Possible Health Effects at Sellafield ................................................................................ 47 5.6.5. Conclusions on Health Effects .................................................................................................. 48 6. CASE STUDY LA HAGUE.........................................................................................................49 6.1. NATIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Overview on RRSF Reprocessing, from Spent Fuel Transportation to Vitrified Residues Storage
    TH RERTR 2015 – 36 INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON REDUCED ENRICHMENT FOR RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS OCTOBER 11‐14, 2015 THE PLAZA HOTEL SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA Overview on RRSF reprocessing, from spent fuel transportation to vitrified residues storage J.F. VALERY, X. DOMINGO, P. LANDAU AREVA NC, 1 place Jean Millier, 92084 Paris La Défense Cedex – France M. LAUNEY, P. DESCHAMPS, C. PECHARD AREVA NC La Hague, 50440 Beaumont-Hague – France V. LALOY, M. KALIFA AREVA TN, 1 Rue des Hérons, 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux – France ABSTRACT AREVA has long experience in transportation and industrial-scale reprocessing of RR UAl spent fuel. Over 23 tons of RR UAl type fuels have been reprocessed at AREVA’s facilities in France, both in Marcoule and La Hague plants. Furthermore, More than 100 RR fuels transportations per year are carried out by AREVA (for fresh and spent fuels). Benefiting from its past experience, AREVA proposes to detail in pictures all the stages of a (Research Reactor Spent Fuel) RRSF reprocessing from its evacuation from reactor site to its corresponding post- reprocessing vitrified waste production and management. In order to comply with its customers growing needs in terms of RRSF management, AREVA is also developing new RRSF reprocessing capacities in the La Hague UP2-800 facility based on the same process principles. This new TCP facility is planned to reprocess several types of RRSF including both UAl and U3Si2 RRSF. 1. Introduction Reprocessing is one of the today-available options for managing back-end of Research Reactor fuel cycle. As described in figure 1 below, this solution offers to RR: - Non-proliferation: reducing 235U enrichment of RRSF from 20-93% to below 2%, - Final waste management optimization: standardizing final waste package and reducing volume and radio-toxicity, removing IAEA safeguards on final waste, - Sustainability of RRSF back-end management: long-lasting solution, re-use of valuable material for civilian purposes i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • 82-SGN-177-STO.Pdf
    COMMISSARIAT A L'ÉNERGIE ATOMIQUE AGENCE NATIONALE POUR LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS RADIOACTIFS 29-33, rue de la Fédération - 75752 PARIS CEDEX 15 ^^^IV CARACTÉRISTIQUES DU SITE DU CENTRE DE LA MANCHE BUREAU DE RECHERCHES GÉOLOGIQUES ET MINIÈRES SERVICE GÉOLOGIQUE NATIONAL Mission stockages B.P. 6009 - 45060 Orléans Cedex - Tél.: (38) 63.80.01 Rapport du B.R.G.M. 82 SGN 177 STO Mars 1982 TABLE DES MATIERES CARACTERISTIQUES DU SITE 2. 1. Situation géographique régionale 2.2. Géologie générale - Caractéristiques des sols 2.2.1. Contexte régional 2.2.2. Géologie locale 2.2.2.1. Les sols 2.2.2.2. Les formations superficielles 2.2.2.3. Le substrat 2.3. Géologie dynamique et sismologie 2.3.1. Evolution géologique du site au cours du Quaternaire 2.3.2. Sismologie 2.4. Climatologie 2.5. Hydrographie, Hydrologie, Hydrogéologie 2.5.1. Hydrographie et Hydrologie 2.5.2. Hydrogéologie 2.6. Océanographie 2.6.1. Profil cbtier Nord 2.6.2. Courants et marées 2.6.3. Projets d'aménagement 2.6.4. Zone intertidale à l'embouchure du ruisseau de Sainte-Hélène 2.7. Géographie économique 2.7.1. Environnement industriel et voies de communication 2.7.2. Environnement rural 2.8. RépartltlaR des "populations Références Appendice 1 - Sismicité du Nord Cotentin Appendice 2 - Morphologie et état mécanique du substrat du Centre Manche Appendice 3 - Données hydrogéologiques Appendice 4 - Composition chimique des eaux des cours d'eau Appendice 5 - Données sur l'agriculture locale par communes LISTE DES FIGURES Figure 2.1 Situation générale du Centre Manche [1/250.000] 2 Figure
    [Show full text]
  • Épaves De Anse † - Yacht Britannique De 10 Mètres Coulé Lors D' Un Incendie
    Cherbourg AF 66 († 24 juin 1944) - Barge a r mée allemande de 47 mètres, coulée lors d' une attaque des alliés. Épave retournée sur un fond de 38 mètres, pour la parti e avant. Épave, c o mp l étement aplatie, reposant sur un fond de 30 mètres, pour la partie arrière. Alabama († 19 juin 1864) - Tr o i s-mâ ts barque américain de 70 mètres, coulé lors d' un c o mb a t naval. Épave disloquée reposant sur un fond de 58 mètres. Site historique : plongée interdite. Armor († 2 janvier 1916) - Bateau à vapeur français de 42 mètres, coulé après avoir talonné une roche. Astrée († 23 janvier 1915) - Cargo français de 106 mètres, coulé suite à un échouage devant Omonville CAP DE LA HAGUE : TERRE DE NAUFRAGES Biville la Rogue. Épave très disloquée reposant sur un fond rocheux de 11 mètres. Balidar († 14 septembre 1943) - Remorqueur allemand de 24 mètres, coulé par l’aviation alliée. Épave en bon état reposant à plat sur un fond de 48 mètres. Bosco († 29 novembre 1919) - Trois-mâts hollandais de 43 mètres ayant talonné la Becchue sous A uderville. Breakaway of Yare ( 17 août 1973) Au large du Cap de la Hague, en Normandie, près de 150 épaves de Anse † - Yacht britannique de 10 mètres coulé lors d' un incendie. Campeador († 25 juillet 1891) - Tr o i s-mâ ts barque à vapeur espagnol de 69 mètres, coulé après son échouage sur la roche de la Lisée. Épave posée à plat sur un fond de 42 mètres. la période contemporaine (naufrages postérieurs à 1850) jonchent les Capel († 26 décembre 1944) - Frégate britannique de 88 mètres, coulée par le sous-marin allemand U 486.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com09/28/2021 10:21:45AM Via Free Access Nothing to Say About Race and Class? 117
    Chapter 3 Nothing to Say About Race and Class? We should be judged, not by the errors we make but by what we make of our errors. annie sugier1 Critics should not construct for our subjects a historically impossible purity. jonathan arac2 [B]eaucoup de problèmes nous paraissent plus essentiels que ceux qui nous concernent singulièrement…. The Second Sex, 1:29 Summer 2006. I am traveling to Berlin to speak at a conference, “Black Euro- pean Studies in Transnational Perspective,” stopping for a month in Oxford on the way. Dragging three overweight suitcases stuffed with books and notes about Simone de Beauvoir, I land at Heathrow and find myself in a longer im- migration queue than usual (because England is playing in the World Cup), and I fall into conversation with two very young American women, recent col- lege graduates. One, who asserts gamely that she “works in improv in New York,” is coming “to study Shakespeare at the Globe”; the other, nervous and asthmatic, is emigrating, moving to (I think) Hertfordshire to get married and live happily ever after. She is carrying her wedding dress with eight-foot train in a monster-sized garment bag over her shoulder, and oozing anxiety about her prospective in-laws, who appear to have a great deal of money. “I’m from a humble background,” she explains to me, a total stranger. She’s from New Ha- ven, but she didn’t go to Yale … This isn’t going to work, I think, but of course 1 Colloque internationale, Université Paris Diderot Paris 7, January 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Stakeholder Participation in Radiological Decision Making
    Radiation Protection 2004 Stakeholder Participation in Radiological Decision Making: Processes and Implications Stakeholder Participation in Radiological Decision Making: Since 1998, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency has been organising a series of workshops to address the various aspects of stakeholder involvement in radiological protection decision making. These workshops have been instrumental in forging consensus and improving understanding of key issues Processes and Implications in this area. Building on the experience of the first two “Villigen workshops”, the third in the series exten- Third Villigen Workshop sively analysed three case studies, which covered the licensing of a new facility, the clean-up and Villigen, Switzerland release of an old facility, and the rehabilitation of a large, contaminated area. Consideration was given to the stakeholder involvement processes that had been used, and the implications that these did or 21-23 October 2003 could have on radiological protection policy, regulation and application. The workshop papers ana- lysing these processes and implications are presented in these proceedings, which should provide valuable examples and lessons for governments, regulators and practitioners. (66 2004 12 1 P) E 24.00 -:HSTCQE=VU]WZ\: ISBN 92-64-10825-4 NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY Radiation Protection STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN RADIOLOGICAL DECISION MAKING: PROCESSES AND IMPLICATIONS Third Villigen Workshop Villigen, Switzerland 21-23 October 2003 © OECD 2004 NEA No. 5298 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR
    [Show full text]
  • The Energy River: Realising Energy Potential from the River Mersey
    The Energy River: Realising Energy Potential from the River Mersey June 2017 Amani Becker, Andy Plater Department of Geography and Planning, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZT Judith Wolf National Oceanography Centre, Liverpool L3 5DA This page has been intentionally left blank ii Acknowledgements The work herein has been funded jointly by the University of Liverpool’s Knowledge Exchange and Impact Voucher Scheme and Liverpool City Council. The contribution of those involved in the project through Liverpool City Council, Christine Darbyshire, and Liverpool City Region LEP, James Johnson and Mark Knowles, is gratefully acknowledged. The contribution of Michela de Dominicis of the National Oceanography Centre, Liverpool, for her work producing a tidal array scenario for the Mersey Estuary is also acknowledged. Thanks also to the following individuals approached during the timeframe of the project: John Eldridge (Cammell Laird), Jack Hardisty (University of Hull), Neil Johnson (Liverpool City Council) and Sue Kidd (University of Liverpool). iii This page has been intentionally left blank iv Executive summary This report has been commissioned by Liverpool City Council (LCC) and joint-funded through the University of Liverpool’s Knowledge Exchange and Impact Voucher Scheme to explore the potential to obtain renewable energy from the River Mersey using established and emerging technologies. The report presents an assessment of current academic literature and the latest industry reports to identify suitable technologies for generation of renewable energy from the Mersey Estuary, its surrounding docks and Liverpool Bay. It also contains a review of energy storage technologies that enable cost-effective use of renewable energy. The review is supplemented with case studies where technologies have been implemented elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Neogene-Quaternary Slow Coastal Uplift of Western Europe Through The
    Neogene-Quaternary slow coastal uplift of Western Europe through the perspective of sequences of strandlines from the Cotentin Peninsula (Normandy, France) Kevin Pedoja, J. Jara-Muñoz, G. de Gelder, J. Robertson, M. Meschis, D. Fernandez-Blanco, M. Nexer, Y. Poprawski, Olivier Dugué, Bernard Delcaillau, et al. To cite this version: Kevin Pedoja, J. Jara-Muñoz, G. de Gelder, J. Robertson, M. Meschis, et al.. Neogene-Quaternary slow coastal uplift of Western Europe through the perspective of sequences of strandlines from the Cotentin Peninsula (Normandy, France). Geomorphology, Elsevier, 2018, 303, pp.338 - 356. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.11.021. hal-01696478 HAL Id: hal-01696478 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01696478 Submitted on 7 Mar 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Neogene - Quaternary slow coastal uplift of Western Europe through the perspective of sequences of strandlines from the Cotentin Peninsula (Normandy, France) K. Pedoja1,2,3, J. Jara-Muñoz4, G. De Gelder5, J. Robertson6, M. Meschis6, D. Fernandez-Blanco5, M . Nexer1,2,3, Y. Poprawski7, O. Dugué1,2,3, B. Delcaillau1,2,3, P. Bessin8, M. Benabdelouahed9,10, C.Authemayou9,10, L.Husson11,12,13, V.Regard14,15,16, D.
    [Show full text]
  • French Implementation Report of PARCOM Recommendation 91/4 on Radioactive Discharges
    French Implementation Report of PARCOM Recommendation 91/4 on radioactive discharges Radioactive Substances Series 2019 French Implementation Report of PARCOM Recommendation 91/4 on radioactive discharges EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PART I – GENERAL INFORMATION 1 The organization of nuclear safety and radiation protection control in France ...................... 8 1.1 State structures ................................................................................................................ 8 1.1.1 Parliament ............................................................................................................... 8 1.1.2 The Government ...................................................................................................... 9 1.1.3 Minister responsible for nuclear safety and radiation protection ........................... 9 1.1.4 High Committee for Transparency and Information on Nuclear Safety .................. 9 1.1.5 Prefects .................................................................................................................. 10 1.1.6 Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) ............................................................................. 10 1.2 Technical support organizations .................................................................................... 11 1.2.1 Advisory Committees of Experts (GPEs) ................................................................ 11 2 The legislative and regulatory framework for applying the best available techniques in France 2.1 The legal system
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Document for Chorley and South Ribble CCG Governing Body
    Chorley and South Ribble CCG Governing Body - Part 1 25 September 2019 at 2.30 pm Victoria Room, Farrington Lodge Hotel, Stanifield Lane, Farington, Lancashire, Preston PR25 4QR Item Agenda Item Objectives/ Presented By Time No Desired Outcomes 1 Welcome and Apologies for Dr G Bangi 2.30 pm Absence Verbal 2 Declarations and Register of To provide Dr G Bangi 2.32 pm Interests (Pages 5 - 14) assurance Assurance 3 Minutes of Previous Meeting For group approval Dr G Bangi 2.35 pm (Pages 15 - 34) Approval 4 Matters Arising (Pages 35 - To update the Dr G Bangi 2.40 pm 36) group Discussion Standing Items 5 Chair's Update To update the Dr G Bangi 2.45 pm group Verbal Board Assurance 6 Governing Body Assurance To provide Mr M Gaunt 2.55 pm Framework and Corporate assurance Assurance Risk Register (Pages 37 - 104) Strategy 7 Integrated Care System (ICS) To update the Mr D Gizzi 3.05 pm Update (Pages 105 - 136) group Discussion 8 Integrated Care Partnership To update the Mr D Gizzi 3.15 pm (ICP) Update (Pages 137 - group Discussion 192) 9 Our Health Our Care (OHOC) To update the Mr D Gizzi 3.25 pm Programme Update (Pages group Discussion 193 - 200) Operational Delivery 10 Integrated Board Report To update the Mrs H Curtis 3.45 pm Agenda Chorley and South Ribble CCG Governing Body - Part 1 Meeting MEETING HELD IN PUBLIC (Pages 201 - 306) group Mr M Gaunt Mrs J Mellor Discussion 11 Financial Performance Report To update the Mr M Gaunt 3.50 pm (Pages 307 - 326) group Discussion Governance and Quality 12 Healthier Lancashire and To update the Mr M Gaunt
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries
    Mycle Schneider Consulting Independent Analysis on Energy and Nuclear Policy 45, allée des deux cèdres Tél: 01 69 83 23 79 91210 Draveil (Paris) Fax: 01 69 40 98 75 France e-mail: [email protected] Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Paris, May 2009 This research was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org) V5 About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2000 he has been an advisor to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Since 2004 he has also been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes, France. In 2007 he was appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University, USA (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 Mycle Schneider was part of a consultants’ consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he was appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Mycle Schneider has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK and at the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Leyland Historical Society
    LEYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY (Founded 1968) Registered Charity No. 1024919 PRESIDENT Mr. W. E. Waring CHAIR VICE-CHAIR Mr. P. Houghton Mrs. E. F. Shorrock HONORARY SECRETARY HONORARY TREASURER Mr. M. J. Park Mr. E. Almond Tel: (01772) 337258 AIMS To promote an interest in history generally and that of the Leyland area in particular MEETINGS Held on the first Monday of each month (September to July inclusive) at 7.30 pm in The Shield Room, Banqueting Suite, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland SUBSCRIPTIONS Vice Presidents: £10.00 per annum Members: £10.00 per annum School Members: £1.00 per annum Casual Visitors: £3.00 per meeting A MEMBER OF THE LANCASHIRE LOCAL HISTORY FEDERATION THE HISTORIC SOCIETY OF LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE and THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL HISTORY Visit the Leyland Historical Society's Web Site at: http//www.leylandhistoricalsociety.co.uk C O N T E N T S Page Title Contributor 4 Editorial Mary Longton 5 Society Affairs Peter Houghton 7 From a Red Letter Day to days with Red Letters Joan Langford 11 Fascinating finds at Haydock Park Edward Almond 15 The Leyland and Farington Mechanics’ Institution Derek Wilkins Joseph Farington: 3rd December 1747 to Joan Langford 19 30th December 1821 ‘We once owned a Brewery’ – W & R Wilkins of Derek Wilkins 26 Longton 34 More wanderings and musings into Memory Lane Sylvia Thompson Railway trip notes – Leyland to Manchester Peter Houghton 38 Piccadilly Can you help with the ‘Industrial Heritage of Editor 52 Leyland’ project? Lailand Chronicle No. 56 Editorial Welcome to the fifty-sixth edition of the Lailand Chronicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrialization of a Small Sludge Retrieval System
    WM'05 Conference, February 27-March 3, 2005, Tucson, AZ WM - 5220 THE REPROCESSING PLANT OF THE FUTURE : A SINGLE EXTRACTION CYCLE P. Bretault, P. Houdin SGN, 1 rue des Hérons, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, 78 182 Saint Quentin-en-Yvelines, France JL. Emin COGEMA, 2 rue Paul Dautier, BP 4, 78141 Velizy-Villacoublay, Cedex, France P. Baron CEA Marcoule, BP 171, 30207 Bagnols-sur-Ceze, France ABSTRACT In France, COGEMA has been reprocessing spent nuclear fuel on an industrial scale for over 40 years, and has consistently worked to optimize facility design and operations. In COGEMA-La Hague’s UP3 reprocessing plant, to achieve the necessary decontamination needed to produce purified uranium and plutonium, five extraction cycles were implemented and used at start-up: first cycle for separation of fission products, uranium and plutonium, two uranium purification cycles and two plutonium purification cycle. By modifying processes at the design stage and making adjustments during operations, we saw that further decontamination of uranium could be achieved with only one cycle. Radiological specification of plutonium was also obtained at the end of the first plutonium purification cycle. These good performance levels were taken into account for the design of the UP2-800 plant where uranium is purified using a single cycle, and for the recent R4 facility which features only one plutonium purification cycle. Relevant information on extraction cycles in first-generation French reprocessing plants (UP1 and UP2-400) as well as design characteristics for the extraction cycles of reprocessing facilities currently operating at the COGEMA-La Hague plant is given. Experience shows that we can obtain adequate performance levels using only three cycles.
    [Show full text]