UK climate threat to nuclear sites a real and present danger?

….The Japanese government is taking away citizen freedoms and implementing jail sentencing for speaking about the nuclear disaster effects (5 to 10 years in Jail for the general population with 2 years in jail for doctors and nurses and gagging orders on the victims). This seems to be the reality behind large industrial incidents in the 21st century and was the reality in Belarus after the Chernobyl accident in the 20th century…

17 February 2014

OpEd by Arclight2011

Posted to nuclear-news.net

…..But the report makes a number of recommendations, requiring reviews of emergency procedures, of techniques for estimating radioactive source terms, and of the adequacy of the system of planning controls for commercial and residential developments off the nuclear licensed site, which will add to delays and costs for any developers.

It also charges the nuclear industry and the ONR to have “more open, transparent and trusted communications, and relationships, with the public”.

Obfuscation was a widespread criticism of the industry in Japan and worldwide, both before and after the tsunami. – http://www.eaem.co.uk/news/weightman-warns-nuclear-industry-do-more-research

“….. there is little quantified information currently available. ONR acknowledges that generation of this information was not practicable within the timescales of producing the stress tests reports. Significant work is required, particularly to evaluate margins to equipment failure against extreme wind and temperature” http://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/fukushima/documents/UK_ST_Final_National_Report.pdf

The recent final national report concerning the UK`s nuclear power plants rediness to deal with Flood events looked at tidal surges and rising water levels but did not take into account extremely heavy rainfall causing flooding as a clear and present danger, in my opinion, and here is why.

The nuclear industry should in invest and take seriously these safety concerns and mitigate them if they want to continue their buisness. The ONR and DECC (UK government departments resonsible for nuclear issues), in recent meetings with green stakeholder groups actually made decisions behind the backs of the stakeholders, thereby wasting more tax payer time and money whilst the stakeholder groups were left shocked at this abuse of the democratic process and impact on the efficiency of health and safety procedure and practice.

A record wave has just hit Britain but forecasters warn far worse is coming

Image source ; http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/458233/Shock-weather-warning-WORST-Atlantic-storm-of-the-winter-is-now-ROARING-towards-Britain

The big nuclear companies threatened DECC from withdrawing all co-operation concerning nuclear matters if they insisted on asking for information that was needed for the stakeholders to argue their points. So, DECC was actually blackmailed. Thats why the ONR said things like this;

“ONR’s view is that due to the relatively gradual effects of climate change, and uncertainty regarding its effect on design basis conditions, the effects of climate change can continue to be managed through the existing PSR process.”

As I write this article Britain is currently having flooding across a wide range of areas with the Thames in London flowing at a record breaking pace. These are caused by the multiple Storms coming in of the Atlantic that has been caused by the movement of the Jet Stream to move south over the UK. The storms hit Norway in recent years causing large rock slides that caused massive disruption to the road system and rail networks and infrastructure.

But the storms have not stopped being formed and currently there are 3 more huge storms heading towards the UK and France.

In the report from the review of nuclear power plants after the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns;

Finding number STF 7;

“Licensees should undertake a more structured and systematic study of the potential for floodwater entry to buildings containing safety ‐ significant structures, systems and components (SSC) from extreme rainfall and / or overtopping of sea defenses.” ONR

Extreme rainfall, snow, tidal surges, rising sea levels, surface flooding caused by extreme rainfall and mismanagement of local environments are a clear and present danger yet the report seemed to highlight the extreme effects of temperature and rising sea levels, in connection with climate change, yet little mention was found concerning possible record breaking rainfall and severe winds even though there are reports of just such flooding causing problems in the relatively near past.

but not all sites even knew of the meteorological conditions as;

“Consideration should be given to all stations receiving site ‐ specific weather forecasts “

And while the whole nations limited emergency transport and manpower is stretched past the limit even considering the army having to step in, what help or support the nuclear workers might expect to get if there was an event such as a loss of heatsink in a reactor or the spreading of nuclear materials from decommission and waste sites in a prolonged flooding situation with sub zero conditions fast approaching.

“Consideration should be given to the provision of additional station ‐ based robust means of personnel transport for extreme weather conditions”

In fact.. EDF NGL thought that there was no immediate issues that needed to be addressed from flooding issues (largely). It was agreed that EDF NDL would stay flexible and adapt to any unforseen situations and any future planning or research in this area could be avoided (likely as to keep the costs down). Though they did admit this;

“for example it has been identified that the extreme maximum ambient air temperature is likely to be beyond the current design basis within he lifetime of some stations. Suitable safety case amendments are being prepared.”

So EDF do not expect the temperature to change quickly either!

There is a lot of unusual rain damage effects happening in the UK such as the undermining of buildings likely caused by deep voids that the water is flowing into or underground streams. Also, charges are being raised against the government for not investing tax payers money in the right infrastructure projects that might help mitigate or avoid flood and severe weather damage caused by extreme wind speeds and gusts. The coast line is seeing very high waves that actually damage the buildings near the coastline. High winds are causing a lot of structual damage.

EDF to the ONR

“Due to the negligible risk posed by extreme weather conditions at Magnox defuelling sites, the licensees do not consider it necessary to further enhance structures on site against weather ‐ induced hazards” EDF – NGL

As I was researching the news on this article I noticed a severe lack of discussion on the causes on the BBC web site and I noticed that the posit that it might not be caused by climate change was being viewed by one “expert” and one view point that said it was climate change that was causing this severe weather (at the bottom of the article). Giving the viewer the impression there is some doubt. No mention is made of the Global record breaking weather conditions. The Science Media Centre UK is obviously “managing” the “right” science and the implimentations of thee Leveson Press enquiry are obviously underway.

As there was no mention of the possible threat to the UK`s nuclear sites I felt that I might look into this possible threat as the response to Fukushima report did not seemed to expect extreme and persistent rainfall patterns as quickly as the event the UK is having presently.

As I researched this topic I realised that serious- flood events had happened before in both nuclear waste and reproceesing plants as well as nuclear power plants. These events were small and likely contained or mitigated (there is some evidence of contamination and cancer clusters).

During this recent event we are seeing sinkholes appearing in many random places caused by the sheer volume of water. River banks across the country are being undermined and that causes collapses and increased erosion. Vast areas are deep underwater and things are set to get worse.

If there is a nuclear incident at one of these power plants and a reactor was threatened with a loss of power, the report said that a back up emergency equipment team should be available for deployment to deal with any serious loss of power at a reactor.

The UK duly complied by placing a truck with some basic equipment ready for deployment in the UK within hours of such a situation. But transport links can be severely compromised and the under funded emergency services will be dealing with saving people from the floods. Peoples safety would be compromised if any of the hard pressed emergency services or Army personnel had to assist so it would seem that the UK may not be ready for such incidents and I believe that the nuclear industry have not (once again) looked at all the possibilities and invested in real solutions.

Concerning Dungeness B, the report said that there is a concern for loss of electricity at the station in the event of extreme weather conditions such as the UK is presently having. Here is the actual quotes from the report;

“Dungeness B power station has raised a Consideration to connect the trace and tank heating systems to secure electrical supplies. These are currently connected to grid supplies which are assumed to be lost during extreme weather.”

“With regard to the margins to failure of equipment beyond the design basis, there is little quantified information currently available. ONR acknowledges that generation of this information was not practicable within the timescales of producing the stress tests reports. Significant work is required, particularly to evaluate margins to equipment failure against extreme wind and temperature”

One wonders if the recent shut down of this plant might have been because they are not prepared for the more serious eventualities that might occur.

The speed and effect of these multiple storms is to bring forward the severe weather issues and for the nuclear industry to take climate change seriously and not sideline or ignore the safety issues mentioned within the report.

There are over 1000 nuclear legacy sites around the UK and many working nuclear reactors/fuel processing/waste treatment sites also. How are we going to upgrade all of them in a timely and safe manner? Where will the money and expertise come from as the UK`s technical workforce is already stretched to the limit?

David Camerons answer is to invest in nuclear education facilities, but isnt it too late already to begin educating a new batch of nuclear engineers when we have to employ foreign companies earning huge profits to run the existing industry? We need other choices that can be implemented now and an independent risk assessment regime.

The nuclear industry needs to be brought to heel as they claim information as a corporate secret and the names of the main planners of these policies as confidential (likely to avoid any legal claims concerning responsibility). They have blatantly blackmailed DECC to back off any in depth investigations of legacy site decommissioning in relation to pollution data etc.

We need transparency now that climate change has become a clear and present danger. We should not wait for another ecological/human tragedy to happen such as the terrible environmental, social and health situations at Fukushima and Myiagi prefectures in Japan

The Japanese government is taking away citizen freedoms and implementing jail sentencing for speaking about the nuclear disaster effects (5 to 10 years in Jail for the general population with 2 years in jail for doctors and nurses and gagging orders on the victims). This seems to be the reality behind large industrial incidents in the 21st century and was the reality in Belarus after the Chernobyl accident in the 20th century.

Flooding threatens vital transport, health and nuclear facilities, warns Sepa

from Sunday Herald, 12 January 2014

Airports, power stations, key road and rail links, nuclear bases and the Scottish government’s Edinburgh headquarters are all at risk of flooding, according to maps compiled by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa).

http://www.robedwards.com/2014/01/flooding-threatens-vital-transport-health-and-nuclear-facilities-warns-sepa.html

Sizewell Flood Map

Even if flooded, the risk of a major leak should only be one in a thousand. The fact that there were major problems at more than one plant in Fukushima shows brings into question the way that risk assessments at nuclear plants are carried out.

http://www.plux.co.uk/sizewell-flood-map/

Dawlish railway line washed away

By Western Daily Press |

Posted: February 12, 2014

Devon and Cornwall are now cut off by rail from the rest of the country, because of the collapse of the line at Dawlish due to the track support being washed away by the terrific storms over the weekend.

By Linda Fort

‘Nuclear warning disabled by flood’

15 Oct 2008 00:00

Tens of thousands of people could not be warned of any nuclear accident last year because the atomic bomb factory alarm system was disabled by flooding, according to an investigative report.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/nuclear-warning-disabled-by-flood-4247211

The Bristol ‘tsunami’ – flood or fallacy?

Posted on by Charly Stamper

From eyewitness reports, this is what it felt like to be caught up in the most catastrophic flood ever to hit western Britain. Striking in January 1607*, its effects were felt all over the south-west of England, extending over 570 km of coastline from Barnstaple to south Wales and as far inland as Glastonbury (approximately 22km). Contemporary sources put the death toll at over 2,000, though modern estimates have revised this to 500 – 1000¹. The water flow is said to have been so fast “… that no gray-hounde could have escaped by running before them.” But what was the cause?

http://betweenarock.co.uk/random-science/the-bristol-tsunami-flood-or-fallacy/

Sizewell B: Nuclear watchdog could soon make a decision on N-plant safety zone extension

February 16 2014

….But she reiterated that they felt the current 2.4km zone should be retained – unless there is a material change in the risks from the Sizewell site or changes in UK legislation or nuclear emergency planning policy.

“It is important to recognise that there has been no change in the safety risk assessment associated with Sizewell B and, as the consultation document correctly explains, the assessed risks associated with Sizewell A have reduced as a result of the removal of its nuclear fuel,” she added. “There has been no change in UK legislation or policy regarding offsite nuclear emergency planning.”

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell_b_nuclear_watchdog_could_soon_make_a_decision_on_n_plant_safety_zone_extension_1_2273116

Public pay five million pound bill for flood damage at UK’s nuclear weapons factory

Date: 5 July 2010

Severe flooding at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Burghfield, near Reading, Berkshire, on 20th July 2007 came close to overwhelming the site, resulting in a ‘near miss’ event and causing long-term disruption to nuclear weapons manufacture,

http://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/awe-burghfield/public-pay-five-million-pound-bill-flood-damage-uks-nuclear-weapons-factory

Nuclear waste in flood path?

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

A temporary waste store for the ILW was being set up.
People in Lydney (where there has been concern over the incidence of child cancers) had asked why waste could not be left in vaults until a national repository was built. But Berkeley director Mr.J.Crocker said the problem was that the vaults were below the water table.

“Dr.Hellen asked where the risk of flooding sits. Mr.Crocker replied that the vaults have flooded before and the risk remains of it happening again. Storing the waste in the proposed ILW store reduces these risks of flooding in future to a low level.”
http://www.sitestakeholdergroups.org.uk/berkeley/upload/Berkeley-Site-Stakeholder-Group-Meeting-Minutes-1-March-2007.pdf

Sea level rise: Flood protection for nuclear reactors failing

(March 3, 2000) After the flooding of two nuclear reactors at the Blayais site in France in the end of December 1999, a new debate started on the risks of sea level rise and floods caused by gales or hurricanes. At hindsight the risk of a “near-core melt” at Blayais was terryfingly large. Blayais units 1 and 2 are still closed for repairs.

http://www.wiseinternational.org/node/2411

Greenpeace investigates nuclear waste at Sellafield, 1994

Uploaded on 17 Feb 2009

In 1994, Greenpeace snuck in to the radioactive waste repository at Drigg, near the Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria.

The poorly packaged junk and high radiation levels are disturbing enough; set aside the revelation that LLWR – the current management company – are missing records of what was dumped in there, it becomes really scary.

Read the full story at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuc…