THE HANDSTAND

SEPTEMBER 2006
This is the most important warning we have yet received about nuclear power facilities in England. All european Governments should now be aware that danger is growing. The English already have these nuclear stations going longer than planned and talk of extending use further. Also they have this year sold out their own Government's core responsibilities while there was a serious leak going on, unreported, in one of them.

Documents reveal hidden fears over Britain's nuclear plants

Unexplained cracks in reactor cores increase likelihood of accident, say government inspectors

John Vidal and Ian Sample
Wednesday July 5, 2006
The Guardian


Revelations of safety concerns at Britain's AGR power stations come at a crucial time for the nuclear industry, with results of the government's energy review due in the next fortnight. Photograph: Martin Argles
 

Government nuclear inspectors have raised serious questions over the safety of Britain's ageing atomic power stations, some of which have developed major cracks in their reactor cores, documents reveal today.

The safety assessments, obtained under Freedom of Information legislation, show the Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD) has issued warnings over the deterioration of reactor cores at Hinkley Point B in Somerset and other British nuclear plants. The directorate also criticises British Energy, which operates 13 advanced gas-cooled nuclear reactors including Hinkley.


According to the papers, the company does not know the extent of the damage to the reactor cores, cannot monitor their deterioration and does not fully understand why cracking has occurred. They reveal that in June last year, the NSD said it was faced with "significant regulatory issues ... for all operating AGR reactors".

The NSD's most recent safety assessment of Hinkley, completed in April, warns that its continued operation is likely to increase the risk of an accident. While the NSD says it does not believe that there is any immediate radiation danger to the public, it says there is a possibility of serious faults developing that would force the long term or permanent closure of other nuclear plants of the same design.

"While I do not believe that a large release [of radiation] is a likely scenario, some lesser event ... is, I believe, inevitable at some stage if a vigilant precautionary approach is not adopted. There is an an increased likelihood of increased risk should we agree to continued operation," says the inspector.

The documents show the NSD wants more frequent and more probing inspections of the reactor cores at all Britain's AGR plants. These inspections require the reactors to be shut down for weeks. The premature closing of any nuclear power plant could throw Britain's electricity supplies into chaos. Closure of Hinkley Point would be likely to lead to closure of at least three other nuclear stations built at the same time, which are also known to be suffering from cracks in their cores.

These cores are pillars of bricks between which the nuclear rods are lowered. Bricks within these columns are cracked and thus the close down is necessary to dismantle these columns testing the bricks. It is thought that in this high radioactive area there is no simple way they could do this without new machinery. See text end of this article brought on from July 2006 Issue of The Handstand .Editor JB

Cracks in the graphite brick cores of ageing reactors have been observed for some time but until now there has been little public knowledge of the extent of the problem. British Energy warned in 2004 that its Hinkley Point B, Hunterston B, Heysham 2 and Torness plants might not be able to be extend their 30-year lives because of cracked bricks, but it gave few details of the extent of the problem.

British Energy is keen to extend the life of its AGR reactors but the papers, obtained by Greenpeace via Stop Hinkley, a local nuclear watchdog group, suggest that unless British Energy improves safety checks, the plants might have to be closed.

The revelations come at a critical point, with the government's energy review expected to be published in the next two weeks and both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown having indicated that a new generation of nuclear power is needed. Yesterday the prime minister told the Commons liaison committee that he had altered his position in favour of nuclear power since the last white paper on energy policy in 2003. "I'll be totally honest with you, I've changed my mind," he said.

However, John Large, an independent nuclear engineer who has advised the government and who reviewed the FoI papers for Greenpeace yesterday said it was "gambling with public safety" to allow Hinkley Point to continue operating. Calling for other AGR stations to be closed, he said: "The reactors should be immediately shut down and remain so until a robust nuclear safety case free of uncertainties has been established".

He accused the NSD of being reluctant to call for the closure of Hinkley Point because of the Mr Blair's stated intention to review nuclear power. "What nuclear installations inspector is going to close a plant down at such a politically critical time?", he asked.

In the papers from June 2005, an inspector concludes of Britain's AGR power stations: "I judge that there is significant uncertainty in the likelihood and consequences for the core safety functionality posed by ... core damage. The assessor needs to assume worst case consequences of ... core damage unless the licensee is able to provide robust arguments."

In a 2004 assessment, the inspector complains about the "lack of clarity" by British Energy, "continued uncertainty" in the prediction of behaviour in reactor cores, and the "lack of progress" made by British Energy in addressing issues in all AGR reactors.

British Energy said yesterday it had provided new evidence to the NSD. "If the health and safety executive [the government body that oversees the NSD] were not confident in the safety of the reactor cores we would not allow the reactors to operate. The assessment report was part of the ongoing regulatory process ... The Nuclear Safety Directorate is monitoring closely British Energy's work on graphite and, where necessary, is influencing the scope and extent of the reactor core inspections that the company carries out.

"British Energy has also been working on methods to monitor the cores whilst the reactors are in service. This will provide added re-assurance on the condition of the cores."

Stephen Tindale , executive director of Greenpeace said: "These documents show the incompetence of the government and British Energy who have known about these cracks yet have refused to do anything about it."

Problem sites

Hinkley Point B, Somerset (switched on 1976)
Known to have core damage

Hartlepool, Cleveland (1983)
Known to have core damage

Hunterston B, Ayrshire (1976)
Known to have core damage

Heysham 1, Lancashire (1983)
Known to have core damage

Dungeness, Kent (1983)
Documents hint that core damage found

Torness, East Lothian (1988)
Documents hint that core damage found..............................................

JULY 6TH 2006

 

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Wednesday July 5, 2006
The Guardian

No one knows when the cracks first started to appear, but as long ago as 2004, British Energy voiced concerns about fractures in the cores of its 14 reactors.

The cracks were spotted in graphite bricks in the cores of all the company's advanced gas-cooled reactors, or AGRs. Collectively, they provide the country with nearly one fifth of its electricity. But the extent of the potential damage, and the consequences that might flow from it, were uncertain.

However, the latest report by the government's Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD), obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, makes clear that nuclear inspectors have raised repeated concerns about the dangers of continuing to operate Hinkley Point B nuclear power station in Somerset and other nuclear plants weakened by cracks. British Energy, they say, knows too little about the cracks to be confident they can operate without incident.

According to the NSD report, British Energy does not fully understand why the bricks are cracking; how many are damaged; and the number of cracks that would make the reactor unsafe.

Graphite bricks are used to build the heart of a reactor core. They work by slowing down fast-moving neutrons in the nuclear reaction, making them more likely to split uranium atoms when they slam into the reactor's fuel rods. From the top, a reactor core resembles a giant pepper pot. Thousands of graphite bricks are stacked up to make a cylinder 12 metres high and nearly as wide, with holes running down through it. Hundreds of the holes - fuel channels - are designed to receive fuel rods, which are lowered in when the plant is running. A further 60 or so holes are used to trim the station's power - or in emergencies, shut it down completely - by lowering in control rods that mop up neutrons and halt the nuclear reaction immediately.

The NSD report raises fears that cracks in bricks at Hinkley Point and other nuclear plants at Hunterston B in Ayrshire, Heysham 1 in Lancashire, and Hartlepool in Co Durham could send the precision holes in the reactor out of alignment. That possibility, it says, increases the risks of an accident significantly: fuel rods could become jammed in the reactor, and misalignment could make it hard, if not impossible, to lower in control rods to close the power plant down.

The report, compiled by a nuclear installations inspector for the NSD, states: "Whilst I do not believe that a large release due to failure to shut down on demand is a likely scenario, some lesser event (such as impairment of control rod insertion or fuel movement) is I believe inevitable at some stage if a vigilant precautionary approach is not adopted."

Jammed fuel or control rods could stop cooling gas circulating around the core properly, potentially causing fuel rods to overheat, cladding to melt and a release of radiation into the immediate enclosure surrounding the reactor core. The leak would be contained, but would still lead to the shutdown of the plant.

John Large, an independent nuclear consultant who has reviewed the documents, believes the NSD is downplaying the potential dangers. British Energy has no way of knowing how strong the reactor core at Hinkley Point is, and an otherwise minor accident at the plant might trigger a dangerous and widespread release of radioactivity, he said.

"If the bricks are weakened, and they are, you run the risk of having an accident giving you a reactor that you can't close down, which has a big hole in the side, and that is when you get a major release of radioactivity," said Dr Large. "The NSD is saying they are going to have a gamble here by allowing these to operate, that they're not going to have an accident in the remaining life of these reactors, and you cannot say that."

Dr Large believes the NSD has held off calling for the ageing nuclear plants to be shut down because of Tony Blair's renewed interest in nuclear power in the forthcoming energy review.

"If the NSD called for the closure of Hinkley, they would also have to close Hunterston, Hartlepool and Heysham I, which have cracks and are of a similar age. But what nuclear installations inspector is going to close down a plant at such an incredibly critical time?" he said.

Footnotes

Graphite bricks
Graphite bricks slow down fast-moving neutrons that drive nuclear reactions, boosting efficiency. Radiation ages bricks, but because levels of radiation vary, predicting which bricks are most damaged is difficult.

Advanced gas-cooled reactors
Second generation of British nuclear reactors built in 1970s. Fuelled by enriched uranium oxide pellets and cooled by carbon dioxide, pumped at pressure around reactor core

Nuclear Safety Directorate
Arm of government's Health and Safety Executive. Regulates industry in attempt to prevent major accidents.

Fuel rods
Fuel is added to reactor by lowering fuel "stringers" into holes in core. Fuel is enriched to 2.5% to 3.5% uranium 235.

Control rods
Lowered into holes in reactor to slow nuclear reaction, but can be dropped in rapidly to shut it down. Made of boron alloy, which absorbs neutrons needed to sustain chain reaction.



Safety comes first with nuclear power

Monday July 10, 2006
The Guardian

Your reference to "hidden fears" over Hinkley Point B nuclear power station (Report, July 5) is misleading. The cracking of graphite bricks at the core of reactors is not a new issue - but the HSE required increased graphite inspections by British Energy to ensure close monitoring.

I must refute the accusation we are reluctant to take regulatory action. Inspectors have the power to limit the operation of reactors or shut them - and have no qualms about using these powers. The shutdown of reactors at Heysham, Hartlepool and Oldbury, and the Thorp facility at Sellafield show this. At Hinkley Point, there is no evidence the reactor safety systems are compromised. We would not allow the reactors to continue operating if we were not confident in their safety.
Mike Weightman
Chief inspector of nuclear installations,
Health and Safety Executive


Power Struggles- How the unions took the nuclear shilling

Andy Rowell, 18 July 2006
www.spinwatch.org


'We are extremely delighted,' says Howard Rooms. 'We have been working for a long time to get nuclear back on the agenda. We are more than delighted'.

Howard Rooms is a trade unionist from BNFL's controversial plant at Sellafield who has spent twenty five year fighting for the nuclear industry. He is the coordinator for the Nuclear Workers Campaign or nUKlear 21 that represents workers from Dounreay in Scotland to Dungeness in Kent. It has members from the five trade unions that have nuclear workers: AMICUS, GMB, PROSPECT, T&G and UCATT.

Not always popular, Rooms reckons his campaign group are the Millwall supporters of the energy business: no one likes them, but they don't care. And this week, after years of behind the scenes lobbying, nuclear workers got the goal they wanted: the green light for a generation of new nuclear power plants.


On Wednesday, the day after Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling gave nuclear the go ahead, a jubilant Howard Rooms was at Westminster to meet Blair and Darling and to hand in a petition signed by 10,000 nuclear workers. Speaking before the visit, the veteran trade unionist let slip what he would say to Blair. I will 'thank him for meeting with us and impress on him the need for a fair and balanced energy policy for the UK including nuclear.'

He added that he would be telling the Prime Minster that there are several sites around the UK that 'are more than willing' to support 'the nuclear renaissance.'

Rooms outlines the strategy that nUKlear 21 has waged to get nuclear power back on the agenda. He says that 'going back years and years we set out to influence our own unions. Their campaign had been 'pretty successful to get nuclear accepted' as part of an energy mix.

Indeed, nUKlear 21's predecessor was the National Campaign for the Nuclear Industry (NCNI) that was launched in the mid-eighties.  By 1990, BNFL was praising the 'unsung heroes' of the NCNI, who were putting in 'a tremendous amount of time and energy into lobbying at party and trade union conferences over the past several years'. One BNFL source said at the time: 'There's no question in our minds that they have performed a very significant role in modifying the attitudes of their fellow trade unionists outside the nuclear industry'.

By the year 2000, nuclear's future was politically dead but climate change was beginning to climb up the political agenda. So in 2001 the NCNI changed its name to nUKlear 21, to reflect 'our new approach to our campaigning from merely defending civil nuclear power to promoting it as an environmentally friendly non-global warming energy source for the 21st century'.

They have taken this message to the political parties. 'We have tended to lobby party conferences and fringe meetings and get ourselves down to Westminster, talking to MPs,' says Rooms. With the unions won over, the next stage was to get the backing of key local constituency MPs who could then 'spread the message through the political parties'. Working closely with nUKlear 21 have been John Robertson, the chair of the All-Party Group on Nuclear Energy, and Jamie Reed, the MP for Copeland who is an ex-press spokesperson for BNFL.

The strategy was clever. Instead of the sinister nuclear lobby you had workers and MPs fighting for jobs. Earlier this year, BNFL's current Corporate Affairs Director, Philip Dewhurst admitted to the trade journal PR Week that BNFL was spreading its message 'via third-party opinion because the public would be suspicious if we started ramming pro-nuclear messages down their throats'. Soon after it was revealed that BNFL was funding the expenses of nUKlear 21.

Howard Rooms maintains the campaign is supported 'purely from our own funding'. However, he concedes that the nuclear companies 'have always had a pretty good relationship with the trade unions and afforded us full time facilities, including access to computers and office equipment.'

Rooms admits that as well as paying his wages, BNFL pays for his 'expenses as part of the arrangements we have with the company. But they pay for that kind of arrangement what ever we are doing … We don't see it as taking money off the company. The company don't have any say on what we do or how we spend our time. We have a free-reign'.

BNFL has confirmed the relationship, arguing that trade union representatives 'have a legitimate role in promoting and defending employment in the nuclear industry'. The company admits that trade union 'representatives are paid by the Company when on these duties'. It adds that 'travel and business expenses are reimbursed' and administrative support facilities such communications systems and general office facilities are also provided. But BNFL declines to offer how much it pays. 

The industry's critics are worried that unionists are taking money from the industry. Martin Forwood is the Campaign Coordinator for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment. He says that the 'unions current promotion of new nukes, paid for largely by their company' is similar to the one 'they undertook in the early 1990's' to fight for the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Then the workers' campaign which was under the banner of 'Trust Us' was again partly funded by BNFL says Forwood. 'It involved whistle-stop tours of all major UK towns and cities and even included work in Europe'.

'BNFL realized that as a company they were so disliked that they going to be hard pushed to get things through, but if they used the 'nice work-force', if all of this came from the workers themselves, they stood a much better chance gaining public approval for any major new projects.'

He believes that 'the workers have been used by the company in that respect. From our point of view I would rather see the workers actually working and making sure the plant is safe rather than doing the company's business'.

 There are also critics from unions whose members are part of nUKlear 21. Ronnie Waugh sits on the National Executive of the GMB union. Speaking personally he is highly critical of nUKlear 21.  'They are not being open in the union in terms of how they are so close to their employer', he says. Despite this, there appears to be 'big time' lobbying going on within the union on behalf of the nuclear industry. 'It appears the tail is wagging the dog,' he says.

Waugh says he is against 'any trade union being beholden to an employer for any purpose. It  is something a trade union would never do, take money off the employer, apart from being paid obviously but in terms of campaigning. You never compromise your principles by taking money off the employer.' He says that if you 'take the employers shilling you have been compromised'.

Other trade unionists worry too. John Aitkin is the chair of 'Region One' of the T&G Union London and South East region. 'Unions are independent' he says.'The T&G is an independent union, so is the GMB. We are opposed to sweet-heart deals of any shape or form. We just should not get in bed with the nuclear agencies'.

'Transparency is the key' adds Simon Webley from the Institute of Business Ethics. 'If you are being paid either expenses or fees or doing something on behalf of a company, then that should be made public by the company as well as the individuals.'

Transparency should mean that both BNFL and nUKlear 21 are more open about their financial relationship. Howard Rooms stands firm: 'We will take money from wherever we can get it,' he says. 'We are trying to run a campaign in defence of an industry, in defence of jobs, like other industries have done in the past, like the miners did, like the car workers do. We will do what ever it takes to defend our livelihood and our industry'.

A version of this article also appeared in the Guardian

Towns 'should be paid for buried nuclear waste'

Matt Weaver and agencies
Monday July 31, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Local communities should be offered incentives to volunteer for having lethal radioactive waste buried in their area, an independent committee appointed by the government concluded today.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management unanimously decided that burial deep underground, at a cost of £10bn, was the best way of dealing Britain's nuclear waste.

In its final report it noted that Britain's nuclear programme has already generated 470,00 cubic metres of waste - enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times. But it said that for decades efforts to find a long-term solution to the waste had "failed".

It also that acknowledged "geological disposal" was highly controversial and that it would take "several decades" to identify suitable sites that would be accepted locally.

A spokesman for the committee said it would be up to individual communities to determine the detail of the incentives package.

He said: "If all you offer a community is nuclear waste, the answer will be 'no'. The way forward is to work in partnership with the communities to identify real benefits appropriate to the area. This could include economic development, regeneration, or improved infrastructure such as roads and transport links."

He pointed out that other countries have adopted a similar approach, including South Korea which offers cash incentives running to millions, and Belgium, which offers economic development.

In the meantime the committee said that the radioactive storage facilities that are currently being used would have to be reviewed and secured from the threat of terrorism. Some will have to be moved underground with "heavily reinforced walls and roofs," it said.

It concluded that "as soon as possible", current depots should be closed and the waste buried instead.

But it added that if replacement depots were needed in the interim, they should be designed to last for up to 100 years, because finding appropriate burial sites would take so long to resolve.

It said that burial sites should not be imposed on communities but selected from those that volunteer to take the waste. In return local communities will be offered "community packages".

The committee's report says: "For the process to be fair, a local community hosting a facility should be better off after siting than before. This reflects and acknowledges the service that is being provided for society at large."

It recommended that an independent body should be set up to oversee the selection of sites.

Professor Gordon MacKerron, chairman of the committee, said: "The UK has been creating radioactive waste for 50 years without any clear idea of what to do with it. The issue has dragged on for too long."

Speaking on the BBC's Today programme he conceded that the £10bn costs of deep burial was a "great", but added: "It's a relatively small proportion of the total bill for management of our nuclear liabilities and waste, which is now about £65bn."

Prof MacKerron acknowledged that the proposed solution would not be risk-free: "There is no such thing as zero-risk, but if you look at the risk of the various alternatives, burying deep underground looks to us the least risky," he said.

The government welcomed what it described as a "ground-breaking" report. Environment secretary David Miliband said: "Public safety and environmental protection will be our utmost concern in taking forward the programme for the long- term management of the UK's higher activity wastes."

He added: "We have no intention of forcing nuclear waste on any community."

Sir David Wallace, vice-president of the Royal Society said: "It is inevitable that a robust and flexible long-term management strategy will require further research but this must not be used as an excuse to delay the implementation of a disposal programme, including the process of identifying suitable sites.

"There is considerably less uncertainty surrounding burying radioactive waste deep underground in stable geological formations than other options.

Liberal Democrat shadow environment secretary Chris Huhne said that deep burial looked like the "least bad solution" for dealing with existing waste, providing communities could be found willing to take it on.

But he said the report's analysis of the cost and problems of dealing safely with nuclear waste showed that anyone contemplating a new generation of atomic energy plants "needs their head examining".

"It is a real warning about the dangers and costs of creating yet more (waste)," he told Today.

He added: "Despite the fact that we are one of the safest and most stable democracies in the world, can we really guarantee that future generations are going to be as stable for 3,000 years - a period as long as going back to the Pharaohs and the pyramids?"