EUROPE « nuclear-news

Anti–nuclear resistance in Russia: problems, protests, reprisals

Anti–nuclear resistance in Russia: problems, protests, reprisals [Full Report 2020]

RNA INTERNATIONAL·FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2020·

Produced by RSEU’s program “Against nuclear and radioaсtive threats”

Report “Anti–nuclear resistance in Russia: problems, protests, reprisals” Produced by RSEU’s program “Against nuclear and radioaсtive threats”

Published: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2020

Authors: RSEU experts edited by Tatyana Pautova
Editor and translator: Vitaly Servetnik
English editor: Anna WhiteCover
illustration: Anastasia Semenova
Layout: Sergey Fedulov

The Russian Social Ecological Union (RSEU)/ Friends of the Earth Russia is a non-governmental, non-profit and member based democratic organization,established in 1992. RSEU brings together environmental organizations and activistsfrom across Russia. All RSEU activities are aimed at nature conservation, protection ofhealth and the well-being of people in Russia and around the world.In 2014, RSEU became the Russian member of Friends of the Earth International.http://rusecounion.ru/eng
Saitnt Petersburg 2020

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………4
Nuclear energy: failures and lies…….5
Expired reactors……………………………6
Decommissioning problems…………..7
Uranium mining protest………………..8

Rosatom Importing uranium waste..9
The Mayak plant: Rosatom’s dirty face………10
Struggle against nuclear repository……………11

Rosatom’s ‘death plants’…………………………..12
A road through a radioactive graveyard……..14
Conclusion: nuclear power is a problem, not a solution….14

References……15

Introduction

Rosatom

is a Russian state-owned corporation which builds and operates nuclear power plants in Russia and globally. The state-run nuclear industry in Russia has a long history of nuclear crises, including the Kyshtym disaster in 1957 and Chernobyl in 1986. Yet Rosatom plans to build dozens of nuclear reactors in Russia, to export its deadly nuclear technologies to other countries, and then to import their hazardous nuclear waste.This report is a collection of events and details about the resistance to Russian state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, and other activities that have led to the pollution of the environment and violation of human rights. Social and environmental conflicts created by Rosatom have been left unresolved for years, while at the same time, environmental defenders who have raised these issues, have consistently experienced reprisals.

Nuclear energy: failures and lies

Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, is heir to the Soviet atomic industry, despite all attempts to appear otherwise. Nuclear disasters still affect us and many of their long-term problems have been left unresolved. Upon review of the recent accidents that have occured at nuclear facilities in Russia,it is clear that few improvements have been made. We see this again and again in the examples mentioned in this report.

• In the autumn of 2017, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered a concentration of the technogenic radionuclide ruthenium–106 in the atmosphere of several European countries.

(1) A number of experts linked the ruthenium release to the Mayaplant in the Chelyabinsk Region (2-3), but Rosatom continues to deny this.• On the 8th of August 2019, an explosion occurred during a test of a liquid rocket launcher at a marine train-ing ground in Nenoksa Village of Arkhangelsk Region. The administration of the city of Severodvinsk, 30 km from the scene, reported an increase in radiation levels, but later denied the claim. The Ministry of Emergency registered an increase of 20 times (to2 µSv/h) around Severodvinsk (4), while the Ministry of Defense reported the radiation level as normal. Only two days later,

Rosatom reported that five employees were killed and three were injured at the test site. According to media reports, two employees of the Ministry of Defense were also killed and three were injured, and medical personnel who helped the victims were not informed about the riskof radiation exposure (5).

Expired reactors

More than 70% of Russian nuclear reactors are outdated. They were developed in the 1970 s and were designed to operate for only 30 years. The lifetimes of such reactors have been extended by twice the design limit (6).

Rosatom’s strategy also includes a dangerous increase of the reactor’s thermal power.

Rostekhnadzor (Federal Environmental, Industrial and Nuclear Supervision Service)

grants licenses for lifetime extensions without an environmental impact assessment and without public consultations.

Especially worrying are the lifetime extensions of reactor-types with design flaws. Chernobyl–type (RBMK)reactors in Leningrad, Smolensk and Kursk regions are still in operation after exceeding their lifetimes, as well as VVER–types, such as at the Kola nuclear power plant (NPP) in Murmansk region. Neither type has a sufficient protective shell to contain radioactivity in case of an accident or to protect the reactor from an external impact or influence. (7)……

References

1 https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/34408202 https://www.bfs.de/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/ BfS/EN/2017/1121-ruthenium-106.html (Eng.)

3 https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16750 (Eng.)
4 https://7×7–journal.ru/articles/2019/08/09/admin-istraciya–severodvinska–udalila–s–oficialnogo–saj-ta–reliz–o–skachke–radiacii–v–gorode–posle–vzry-va–pri–ispytanii–reaktivnoj–ustanovki–baza–soobshi-la–o–shesti–postradavshih–ot–oblucheniya

5 https://novayagazeta.ru/arti-cles/2019/08/20/81669–fonila–vannaya–voennye–uvezli–ee–na–kamaze6 http://rusecounion.ru/eng/nuclearstatusre-port2019 (Eng.)

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rna-international/antinuclear-resistance-in-russia-problems-protests-reprisals-full-report-2020/3498100043537008/

June 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, politics, Reference, Russia, wastes | Leave a comment

Czech Fiscal Council warns on the long-term risk of financing a new nuclear reactor

Even the World Nuclear News, voice of the global nuclear industry, admits that nuclear reactors are just too costly

Czech budget council warns of Dukovany cost https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Czech-budget-council-warns-of-Dukovany-cost 05 June 2020

The Czech Fiscal Council, Národní rozpočtová rada (NRR), has warned that financing a new nuclear power unit could have a long-term impact on the country’s budget and could be “a lot higher” than current estimates.

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš said last week that the government will provide a loan to ČEZ to cover 70% of the cost of building a new unit at the Dukovany nuclear power plant, with the majority state-owned utility funding the remaining 30%. The project cost is estimated to be about EUR6.0 billion (USD6.7 billion).

In its latest quarterly report, published on 3 June, the NRR said it was outside its remit to comment on the country’s choice of energy mix, but that it considered it necessary to comment on aspects of policy that significantly affect public budgets.

“In May 2020, the government presented a proposal to provide a loan to ČEZ covering up to 70% of the funds needed for the completion of the Dukovany nuclear power plant, while the costs of project implementation are expected to be around CZK160 billion. It’s obvious that such an amount would have to be secured by the state on the capital markets and thus the share of public debt in GDP would increase,” it said.

v”In addition, experience from the construction of nuclear power plants abroad in recent years has shown that the budgeted amounts are generally significantly exceeded. In the end, the fiscal costs of completing a nuclear power plant may be significantly higher than current estimates. Decisions of similar importance should therefore, in the NRR’s view, be taken on the basis of careful analysis and after a more detailed discussion.”

ČEZ applied to the State Office for Nuclear Safety on 25 March to construct two new reactors at its Dukovany nuclear power plant. Four VVER-440 units are currently in operation at the site, in Vysočina Region.

June 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Russian city Severodvinsk, (near site of nuclear accident) sealed off due to Covid-19

Coronavirus seals off city near secret Russian nuclear accident site, https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2020/06/coronavirus-seals-city-near-secret-russian-nuclear-accident-site The Moscow Times 05, 2020, Authorities have blocked access to Severodvinsk, the north Russian city located near the site of last year’s mysterious nuclear testing accident as the coronavirus outbreak there intensified.The governor of the Arkhangelsk region signed an order to close public access to Severodvinsk this Saturday, the city’s press service said Thursday. Severodvinsk is near the Nyonoksa testing site where an August 2019 explosion during a rocket engine test killed five Russian nuclear workers and led to a radiation spike.

Severodvinsk will set up checkpoints Friday and restrict entry and exit starting midnight Saturday to everyone except workers and people attending funerals, going to country houses or transiting through the city.

“The measure remains in effect until special orders,” the city’s press service said in a statement.

Around 700 people have been infected with Covid-19 at two of the city’s major shipyards since April, an unnamed shipbuilding industry source told the Vedomosti business daily. The Sevmash and Zvezdochka shipyards reportedly saw more than 200 new cases in the past week alone.

The outbreak has prompted federal health officials last week to order enterprises in Severodvinsk to limit their activities.

The Arkhangelsk region has confirmed 2,496 coronavirus infections since the start of the outbreak. Severodvinsk accounts for roughly half of the region’s overall cases.

Last August, a missile exploded during what is believed to have been a recovery operation. The secrecy surrounding the accident has led outside observers to speculate that the explosion involved the Burevestnik nuclear-powered intercontinental cruise missile, dubbed the SSC-X-9 Skyfall by NATO.

President Vladimir Putin later said the accident occurred during testing of what he called promising new weapons systems.

June 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health, Russia | Leave a comment

Nuclear submarine accidents contaminating Russia’s Far East

In 1985, A Nuclear Submarine Explosion Contaminated Russia’s Far East,

Kyle Mizokami, The National Interest•June 5, 2020
Here’s What You Need To Remember: The explosion blew out the reactor’s twelve-ton lid—and fuel rods—and ruptured the pressure hull. The reactor core was destroyed, and eight officers and two enlisted men standing nearby were killed instantly. A the blast threw debris was thrown into the air, and a plume of fallout 650 meters wide by 3.5 kilometers long traveled downwind on the Dunay Peninsula. More debris and the isotope Cobalt-60 was thrown overboard and onto the nearby docks.

In 1985, a Soviet submarine undergoing a delicate refueling procedure experienced a freak accident that killed ten naval personnel. The fuel involved was not diesel, but nuclear, and the resulting environmental disaster contaminated the area with dangerous, lasting radiation. The incident, which remained secret until after the demise of the USSR itself, was one of many nuclear accidents the Soviet Navy experienced during the Cold War……

The explosion blew out the reactor’s twelve-ton lid—and fuel rods—and ruptured the pressure hull. The reactor core was destroyed, and eight officers and two enlisted men standing nearby were killed instantly. A the blast threw debris was thrown into the air, and a plume of fallout 650 meters wide by 3.5 kilometers long traveled downwind on the Dunay Peninsula. More debris and the isotope Cobalt-60 was thrown overboard and onto the nearby docks.

According to Nuclear Risks, the accident scene was heavily contaminated with radioactivity. Gamma ray radiation was not particularly bad; at an exposure rate of five millisieverts per hour, it was the equivalent of getting a chest CT scan every hour. However, the explosion also released 259 petabecquerels of radioactive particles, including twenty-nine gigabecquerels of iodine-131, a known cause of cancer. This bode very badly for the emergency cleanup crews, especially firefighters who needed to get close to the explosion site, and the nearby village of Shkotovo-22. Forty-nine members of the cleanup crew displayed symptoms of radiation sickness, ten of them displaying acute symptoms…….

While the Chazhma Bay region appears contaminated to this day with radiation, it is unknown how much of it is the result of the K-431 incident and how much the result of the many nuclear-powered submarines that were junked and forgotten in the area.

The K-431 incident was one of several involving Soviet submarine reactors. Ten Soviet submarines experienced nuclear accidents, and one other, K-11, also suffered a refueling criticality………. https://news.yahoo.com/1985-nuclear-submarine-explosion-contaminated-213000521.html

June 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | incidents, Russia | Leave a comment

Russia will now allow use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear strike

New Russian policy allows use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear strike https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/06/02/new-russian-policy-allows-use-of-atomic-weapons-against-non-nuclear-strike/

By: Vladimir Isachenkov, The Associated Press 5 June 20 MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday endorsed Russia’s nuclear deterrent policy, which allows him to use atomic weapons in response to a conventional strike targeting the nation’s critical government and military infrastructure.

By including a non-nuclear attack as a possible trigger for Russian nuclear retaliation, the document appears to send a warning signal to the U.S. The new expanded wording reflects Russian concerns about the development of prospective weapons that could give Washington the capability to knock out key military assets and government facilities without resorting to atomic weapons.

In line with Russian military doctrine, the new document reaffirms that the country could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or an aggression involving conventional weapons that “threatens the very existence of the state.”

But the policy document now also offers a detailed description of situations that could trigger the use of nuclear weapons. They include the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies and an enemy attack with conventional weapons that threatens the country’s existence.

In addition to that, the document now states that Russia could use its nuclear arsenals if it gets “reliable information” about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting its territory or its allies and also in the case of ”enemy impact on critically important government or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the incapacitation of which could result in the failure of retaliatory action of nuclear forces.”

U.S.-Russia relations are at post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, the accusations of Russian meddling in the U.S. 2016 presidential election and other differences.

Last year, both Moscow and Washington withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The only U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control agreement still standing is the New START treaty, which was signed in 2010 by U.S. President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The pact limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers and envisages sweeping on-site inspections to verify compliance.

Russia has offered to extend the New START, which expires in February 2021, while the Trump administration has pushed for a new arms control pact that would also include China. Moscow has described that idea as unfeasible, pointing at Beijing’s refusal to negotiate any deal that would reduce its much smaller nuclear arsenal.

In a call with members of his Security Council over the weekend, Putin warned that the New START treaty is bound to expire, but “the negotiations on that crucial issue, important not just for us but for the entire world, have failed to start.”

June 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Uranium mining protests in Russia

Anti–nuclear resistance in Russia: problems, protests, reprisals [Full Report 2020] Report “Anti–nuclear resistance in Russia: problems, protests, reprisals” Produced by RSEU’s program “Against nuclear and radioaсtive threats”

Published: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2020

“……..Uranium mining protest
In the Kurgan region, Rosatom’s subsidiary company, Dalur, has been mining uranium and the local communities fear an environmental disaster. In the summer of 2019, the state environmental appraisal revealed a discrepancy between Dalur’s documentation and the Russian legislation

requirements, but the company started the deposit’s development anyway at the end of 2019.(22)

• The ‘Dobrovolnoe’ uranium deposit is located in a floodplain of the Tobol river basin. This means that all the water that flows into the river will pass through the aquifer, flushing out radioactive and toxic compounds into the surrounding environment. (23)

• Since 2017, Kurgan activists have been protesting against the development of the deposit. They have appealed to the authorities and begun protests. One of their videos, ‘Uranium is Death for Kurgan’, has already reached 50,000 views. (24)

Several times, activists have tried to start a referendum and demand an independent environmental review, but so far, have received only refusals from the local officials.In February 2018, Natalia Shulyatieva, the spouse of activist Andrey Shulyatiev and mother of three children, died after falling into a coma. (25)

Activists believe this occurred in reaction to learning that Dalur had filed a lawsuit against her husband, accusing him of undermining the company’s reputation. The lawsuit was withdrawn following Shulyatieva’s death. (26)

In March 2020, the Federal Security Service in the Kurgan Region initiated a criminal case against local eco–activist Lyubov Kudryashova for her ‘public justification of terrorism using the Internet’. (27)

Activists attribute her persecution to her work at the Public Monitoring Fund for the Environmental Condition and the Population Welfare which she led back in 2017. The Foundation has repeatedly published information on the possible environmental damage resulting from Dalur’s mining activity. (28)

Rosatom Importing uranium waste
In the fall of 2019, environmentalists revealed that radioactive and toxic waste (uranium hexafluoride, UF6)were being imported from Germany through the port of Amsterdam into Russia. This is the waste from the uranium enrichment process which will be sent to the Urals or Siberia and stored in containers above the ground. Thus, under the auspices of a commercial transaction, the German uranium–enriching enterprise, Urenco, avoids its nuclear waste problem, while Rosatom profits by taking the hazardous waste into Russia.

• In response to this transaction, the groups Russian Social–Ecological Union, Ecodefense and Greenpeace Russia called on Russian civil society to protest. More than 30 organisations and movements joined the common statement (29), and various demonstrations have taken place in Russia, as well as in Germany and the Netherlands. (30)

As a result of protests, the question of importing radioactive waste was taken up by the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg (31) and the transportation of the waste was delayed for three months.However, in March 2020, when people in Russia were further restricted from protests during the Covid–19 virus quarantine, the import of radioactive waste was resumed through the port of the less populated town of Ust–Luga in Leningrad Region. Additional organisations and residents of the Leningrad region then decided to join the earlier anti–nuclear statement and protest. (32)

• Following these protests, a number of activists have faced persecution. Like Sosnovy Bor, Novouralskis a nuclear industry–dominated and closed city of Sverdlovsk region, and is the end destination of the transported uranium hexafluoride. The city has rarely seen protests before. In response to a series of one–person protests, authorities have initiated legal cases against three pensioners in the beginning of December 2019 (33). Charges were later dismissed. Another example is Rashid Alimov, an expert from Greenpeace Russia, who protested in the center of Saint Petersburg. Later the same day, two police officers together with six other people without uniform detained Alimov from in front of his house. He then faced charges and a substantial fine. (34)

Charges were later dropped.Environmental organisations that had previously opposed the import of uranium waste were listed as Foreign Agents.

Ecodefense was the first of such, listed in 2014. In 2019, the pressure continued and the organisation’s leader, Alexandra Korolyova, was targeted. (35)

Five criminal cases were initiated against her, which forced her to leave the country. (36)…..”

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rna-international/antinuclear-resistance-in-russia-problems-protests-reprisals-full-report-2020/3498100043537008/

June 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, Russia, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Uranium | Leave a comment

Activists, despite government oppression, campaign for decommissioning of Russia’s aging nuclear reactors

Published: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2020

“………..For many years, Murmansk regional environmental groups have opposed the ageing Kola NPP reactor’s lifetime extension. They have participated in public hearings, have organised many demonstrations (8-9-10), appealed to and received support from the prosecutor’s office(11), but this was all ignored by Rosatom. Activists also called on the governor to shut down the old NPP, but environmental organisations were shutdown instead. One such organisation is Kola Environmental Center (KEC) – listed as a Foreign Agent in 2017– and was subject to two trials and fined 150,000 rubles (12). KEC was forced to close down as a legal entity in2018, but has continued its environmental work as a public movement(13). Another organisation in the region –Nature and Youth – made the decision to close down in order to avoid prosecution, but continues its work as an unregistered initiative

Decommissioning problems

Most of the Russian nuclear power plants, despite their lifetime extensions, are approaching inevitable closure. Over the next 15 years, the NPP decommissioning process will take place. Currently, 36 power units are in operation at 11 NPPs in Russia, and 7 units have been shut down. While the fuel was removed from 5 of these units, the NPPs have not yet been decommissioned(14). This process will lead to enormous amounts of nuclear waste. Moreover, sufficient funds for the decommissioning process have not yet been earmarked. (15)
• In 2018, after 45 years of operation, the first power unit of the Leningrad NPP was finally shut down.The second one scheduled for shutdown is in 2020, the third in 2025 and the fourth in 2026. However,decommissioning projects have not yet been clearly developed for the reactors.

Rosenergoatom, Rosatom’s subsidiary, will develop them in the years following the shutdowns. (16)
• The public organisation, Green World, has worked for many years in Sosnovy Bor, Leningrad Region, a city dominated by the nuclear industry and closed to outsiders. Since 1988, activists of the organisation have opposed dangerous nuclear projects in the Baltic Sea region(17) and have provided the public with independent information on the environmental situation. (18)

Green World has consistently called for the decommissioning of Leningrad NPP and took an early lead in collecting and preparing information on how decommissioning should take place, studying the experience of other countries. (19)

They have paid particular attention to information transparency and to wide participation indecision–making, including, for example, former employees of the nuclear industry. (20)

Rather than be met with cooperation, the organisation and its activists have, since the beginning, experienced pressure from the authorities and the dirty nuclear industry. Activists faced dismissal, lawsuits and even attempts on their lives.In 2015,

Green World was listed as a Foreign Agent and forced to close. (21)
In its place, another organisation was opened – the Public Council of the South Coast of the Gulf of Finland. Activists have continued their work as before under this new name…….”

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rna-international/antinuclear-resistance-in-russia-problems-protests-reprisals-full-report-2020/3498100043537008/

June 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | decommission reactor, Reference, Russia | Leave a comment

French state-controlled utility EDF has to inspect valve leaks at Flamanville, Taishan, Finland nuclear sites

Reuters 3rd June 2020, French state-controlled utility EDF will make more inspections at its
Flamanville and Taishan nuclear sites after valve leaks were reported at
Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear reactor, a company’s spokesman said
on Wednesday. EDF was unaware of any major issues at Flamanville and
Taishan sites similar to the valve leaks in Finland, the spokesman also
said. Finland’s nuclear watchdog reported on May 25 valve problems in a
component involved in the cooling process at the long-delayed OL3 nuclear
reactor.

June 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | France, safety | Leave a comment

Deep concern over environmental cost of planned Sizewell C nuclear station

East Anglian Daily Times 5th June 2020 Councillor David Blackburn: Deeply concerned over the environmental cost of Sizewell C. I share the ‘deep concerns’ of the National Trust to
the potential environmental costs of the proposed Sizewell C new nuclear
reactor project (EADT, 25th May).

They tally with those made at our recent
Saxmundham seminar from environmental representatives including the
naturalist Simon Barnes, the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and Suffolk Coastal
Friends of the Earth. At that meeting it was made clear that Sizewell C
could have major and long term negative effects on highly sensitive sites
like Minsmere, and as the National Trust notes, Dunwich Heath.

And we know as well that Coronation Wood is to be removed in the interim plans for the
site. The natural environment around Sizewell includes some rare and unique
habitats, and clearly an industrial development on the sheer scale of
Sizewell C can’t possibly be able to mitigate all of these issues.

It should also be noted that, in the past few months, renewable energy has
delivered the bulk of UK electricity needs and it is reported that EDF may
be paid £50 million just to turn Sizewell B off due to a lack of demand.
With longer-term concerns over climate change, coastal erosion and rising
sea levels there is a lethal combination of factors that make it much more
sensible not to develop new nuclear reactors in Suffolk. The concerns of
local environmental groups need to be heeded for this and future
generations so that we can continue to enjoy these beautiful landscapes and
their rare wildlife.

https://www.eadt.co.uk/home

June 6, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Most UK pension providers are investing in nuclear weapons companies

“The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was agreed in 2017.

“Once this is ratified by 50 states and comes into effect as a new piece of international law, the implications will be significant for nuclear armed states and financial institutions alike.

“The biggest banking corporations have a global reach and cannot disregard international law.”

Concerns raised over pension investments in nuclear weapons,

https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Most-pension-providers-investing-in-nuclear-weapons.php By Sophie Smith 03/6/20 A report by the UK Nuclear Weapons Financing Research Group has raised concerns about the number of pension providers investing in companies that are producing nuclear weapons.

The report, Banks, Pensions and Nuclear Weapons: Investing in Change, found that among pension providers, policy on restricting investment in nuclear weapons is generally limited to ethical funds. Continue reading →

June 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Climate Experts Predict ‘Grim Future’ For Nuclear Power

Climate Experts Predict ‘Grim Future’ For Nuclear Power

In FOI documents seen by VICE, academics advising the UK government’s nuclear watchdog warn of a climate-invoked disaster. VICE, By Rick Lyons; illustrated by Ella Strickland de Souza 3 June 20,

On 30th January, 1607, a massive storm surge swept up the Bristol channel, swamping large parts of Devon, Somerset, Gloucestershire and South Wales. It is estimated that 2,000 people or more drowned, as houses and villages were swept away and around 200 square miles of farmland inundated. In the Church of All Saints at Kingston Seymour, near Weston-super-Mare, a chiselled mark remains showing that the water reached 7.74 metres above sea level.

Some 412 years on from that tragic event, an academic chose to recall it in a talk he was giving. They did so not because it was an interesting slice of British meteorological history, but in order to warn that it could happen again. And the audience they wanted to warn? The people in charge of Britain’s nuclear power stations.

In fact, that warning was just one of several sobering analyses given the same day at a meeting of academics advising the government’s nuclear watchdog, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), on climate change risks. The little known and catchily named Expert Panel on Natural Hazards – Meteorological and Coastal Flood Hazards Sub-Panel meets to advise the ONR once a year. The minutes and presentation slides of the last meeting, which took place at the ONR head office in Bootle, Merseyside, in May 2019, have been obtained by VICE under the Freedom of Information Act. They make interesting, if not alarming, reading.

For starters, according to the academics – whose names were all redacted – climate change-related heatwaves could lead to a nuclear disaster. Or in their words: “significant heat waves of persistent high temperatures are likely to occur” so that “the ability of Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) plant to maintain required temperature limits could be challenged, potentially leading to a plant shutdown and the risk of an accident”. This matters because, as the academics point out, the UK is set for more frequent and intense heatwaves and we have eight operational nuclear power stations, with three more in the pipeline – Bradwell B, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.

Specific words of caution were given to the builders of Hinkley Point C. Currently under construction at an estimated cost of £22.9 billion, it is the flagship project of the new generation of nuclear power stations from the Nuclear New Build (NNB) Generation Company, a spin-off of EDF Energy. It is due to operate from 2025 until 2085 when it will be retired, or decommissioned. This 60-year lifespan is significant as our planet may change quite a bit during that time. “It is possible,” one academic said, “that by the time HPC is decommissioned the planet will be 4C warmer with many extreme weather events, and therefore with significant design implications for NNB.”

The 1607 flood was not the only historical comparison used to illustrate future risks. Our nuclear power stations must be able to withstand events “worse” than both that devastating flood and the Great Storm of 1703, one speaker said. It’s been argued that the Great Storm, an extratropical cyclone, was the worst Britain has ever experienced. It brought down thousands of trees and chimneys and some estimates put the death toll up to 15,000. It occurred around the birth of journalism; Daniel Defoe penned a whole book about it, The Storm. He wrote: “No pen could describe it, nor tongue express it, nor thought conceive it unless by one in the extremity of it.”

Another presentation at the meeting looked at the possibility of “black swan” storm surges and waves. A black swan was ominously defined as a “high-consequence event that has never been previously observed”. The possibility of a black swan event that causes massive coastal flooding is a big deal to nuclear power stations as they’re all on the coast to use seawater for cooling. The Fukushima disaster stands as an example of what can happen. In 2011, the tsunami in Japan caused three nuclear meltdowns, three hydrogen explosions and a radiation leak which led to residents being evacuated within a 20km radius.

The result of research into black swans – called “Synthesising Unprecedented Coastal Conditions: Extreme Storm Surges” aka SUCCESS – was presented at the meeting. It was important to conduct this research, the academic said, because “the storm surge of 5th December 2013 caused sea levels in many parts of the country that were the highest ever recorded and begs the obvious question – could they have been worse?”

In other words: we’re likely to see storms on a scale never seen before and the only way to get a handle on them is to model their impact using software. One conclusion of modelling these “artificially enhanced events” was that we could see black swan coastal floods which reach close to 6m above sea level.

All in all, the presentations and discussions at the meeting would not have been particularly welcome to the ONR, whose job it is to make sure nuclear power stations are built to standards that guarantee public safety. In a statement to VICE, an ONR spokesperson said “ONR requires that nuclear new build sites are able to withstand extreme natural hazards, by designing against a one in 10,000 year event. Sites must identify these external hazards, which include the impact of climate change, and demonstrate that they are adequately protected against them throughout the lifetime of the facility.”

As one of the experts at the meeting put it, it was “grim news”. But exactly how worried should we be?

On one hand, 1607-scale floods, heatwaves compromising nuclear safety and Black Swan storms doesn’t sound particularly good. On the other, the ONR stipulates that nuclear power stations must be built to withstand “external hazards” so severe they only occur, on average, once every 10,000 years. That seems incredibly robust. However, there a few things to think about here. Firstly, how do you work out what a “once in every 10,000 year event” is? The past isn’t a good guide to future extreme weather in the age of climate change. Modelling may not be especially accurate either. In the words of one academic from the meeting minutes: “Climate and weather models are not good enough.”

The limitations of climate projections are currently being borne out in the real world. Nick Ely national coastal modelling & forecasting manager for the Environment Agency says: “It’s increasingly becoming apparent that defences designed over the last 50 years, using the best evidence at time including climate change, are now no longer providing the standard of protection to the original planned level.”

Another problem is claiming something can withstand a one in 10,000 year event when climate change is constantly moving the goal posts. An infrastructure project with a 60-year lifespan like Hinkley Point C might be able to withstand a one in 10,000 year event when it opens, but climate change means a one in 10,000 year event may become, for example, a one in 8,000 year event by the time its decommissioned. At the same time, a one in 10,000 year event may become something more extreme that the power station hasn’t been designed to withstand…….. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/akwayk/ons-nuclear-power-stations-climate-warning-uk

June 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Assange too sick to attend the very unjust process of the UK extradition hearings

Monica Del Mestre 3 June 20

1. It is extremely concerning that Assange has not been well enough to attend the past several hearings, even remotely. Yet proceedings continue as if this has nothing to do with him – not dissimilar to when he couldn’t follow properly from the glass dock in Woolwich Crown Court.

2. In addition to other ongoing health concerns, Assange faces the serious risk of exposure to Covid in Belmarsh prison, and has been advised that even going to the video room to take part in hearings is unsafe. This is another reason he should be immediately released.

3. Assange’s lawyers have long complained they have had insufficient access to him in prison. Under lockdown conditions, they have had no access to him at all. They have repeatedly flagged that this lack of access seriously impacts their ability to prepare his defence.

4. One of the next steps agreed today is that psychiatric reports on Assange from the prosecution and defence will be due to the court on 31 July. Remember that UN Special Rapporteur @NilsMelzer has expressed alarm many times that Assange shows symptoms of psychological torture.

5. It is a welcome step that the continuation of the full extradition hearing was adjourned, as lockdown conditions present clear barriers to open justice – but 7 September may not be late enough to make a meaningful difference. Also the court is still struggling to find a venue.

6. It remains extremely frustrating that the court does not adequately accommodate NGO observers. I have never experienced so much difficulty accessing a trial in any country as at Woolwich Crown Court in February, and the teleconference option we now have is far from sufficient.

7. The press are also facing severe restrictions. Only 6 journalists have been allowed to attend in person the past 2 hearings, with others limited to the awful phone line. This case is of high public interest and a better solution must be found before the full hearing resumes.

8. Assange’s next callover hearing has been scheduled for 29 June at 10 am. We urge the court to find workable solutions to enable his safe attendance and ensure the press and observers are able to properly monitor proceedings. /END

June 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | civil liberties, Legal, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s Sizewell nuclear plan in doubt, due to cost and China’s involvement?

Plan for new UK nuclear plant under intense scrutiny, Proposal for reactor attracts attention because of Chinese role as well as cost Ft.com Nathalie Thomas in Edinburgh and Jim Pickard in London, JUNE 2 2020

On England’s east coast, a 32-hectare piece of land surrounded by marshes and woods has become the latest focus for the fierce debate about the future of nuclear power in the UK. France’s EDF and China’s CGN last week submitted a planning application to a government agency for a 3.2 gigawatt atomic power plant on a site called Sizewell in Suffolk, which could produce about 7 per cent of Britain’s electricity. The location is already home to another plant operated by EDF.

…… The planning application by EDF and CGN for the Sizewell C plant has unleashed fresh questions over whether Britain needs more large nuclear plants, and stirred controversy about China’s role in critical UK infrastructure as diplomatic relations between the two countries cool, notably over Hong Kong. It also comes at a time when the government is focused on pumping money into infrastructure, including energy, potentially as part of an economic stimulus package that chancellor Rishi Sunak is set to unveil in July in response to the coronavirus crisis.

The planning application by EDF and CGN for the Sizewell C plant has unleashed fresh questions over whether Britain needs more large nuclear plants, and stirred controversy about China’s role in critical UK infrastructure as diplomatic relations between the two countries cool, notably over Hong Kong. It also comes at a time when the government is focused on pumping money into infrastructure, including energy, potentially as part of an economic stimulus package that chancellor Rishi Sunak is set to unveil in July in response to the coronavirus crisis.

……. Another proposed plant in Cumbria was shelved by Japan’s Toshiba in 2018. Japan’s Hitachi froze its plans for a plant on Anglesey last year, although it has continued to pursue planning permission.

……..

Environmentalists insist cheaper, green technologies such as wind, solar and batteries should take precedence over nuclear. ……….Nuclear just isn’t cost-effective,” said Doug Parr, chief scientist for campaign group Greenpeace.

Amid delays partly stemming from technology challenges, the construction costs of Hinkley Point C and other plants using a design called the European pressurised reactor, such as EDF’s Flamanville power station in France, have spiralled. EDF said last year that Hinkley could cost as much as £22.5bn. Two-thirds of that expense will be borne by EDF and the remainder by CGN, and executives at the French company have made clear it cannot afford to shoulder that level of construction risk again. But the electricity produced by Hinkley Point C will come at a high cost to consumers. The government guaranteed EDF and CGN would receive £92.50 per megawatt hour for the power generated at the plant for 35 years in return for the companies taking on all the construction risk, including any cost overruns. That deal was based on 2012 prices and rises each year with inflation. By comparison, offshore wind developers have agreed to build projects for prices as low as £39.65/MWh in 2012 terms.

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/4e3221ef-ac1e-43cc-8d68-e1397ca0637f

Against this backdrop, the government last year launched a consultation on a possible new funding model for new nuclear plants. The so-called regulated asset base model is attractive to developers because it would cut the cost of capital for a new nuclear plant, reflecting how consumers would pay upfront for the project through their energy bills. These consumers could be left picking up the tab for cost overruns.

June 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

France goes back to its restrictive nuclear compensation law affecting Polynesian nuclear test survivors

French legislature resets tighter nuclear compensation law, https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/418189/french-legislature-resets-tighter-nuclear-compensation-law The French legislature has again tightened the law for those seeking compensation for ill health because of the nuclear weapons tests in French Polynesia.

The new law reintroduces the need for every claimant to prove a minimum exposure to radiation for a compensation claim to be accepted.

It was approved by a joint commission of the National Assembly and the Senate which met after last week’s rejection of the text in the Senate.

The National Assembly had earlier voted for the law, and in a first reading, the Senate had initially also approved it but then acceded to amendments.

The French Polynesian members of the legislature have not been in Paris since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and couldn’t take part in the discussion of the proposed law.

The compensation law clause defining the minimum exposure had been removed in 2017 because almost all compensation claims kept being rejected.

However, in 2018 the government changed its mind and reintroduced the restrictions as part of a finance act to complement a health act.

This was challenged and in February, the supreme court ruled that compensation claims lodged before the 2018 law change were not subject to the new terms.

With the new law, however, all outstanding claims have to meet the same requirements.

Between 1966 to 1996, France carried out 193 nuclear weapons tests in French Polynesia and until a decade ago, France claimed its tests were clean caused no harm to humans.

The test sites of Moruroa and Fangataufa remain excised from French Polynesia and are French no-go zones.

June 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | France, Legal, OCEANIA | Leave a comment

Latina plant, the last of Italy’s 4 nuclear power stations to be dismantled

Italy approves dismantling of Latina plant https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Dismantling-of-Italys-Latina-plant-to-begin 02 June 2020

Italy’s Ministry of Economic Development recently issued a decree authorising Societa Gestione Impianti Nucleari SpA (Sogin) to begin the initial phase of decommissioning the Latina nuclear power plant. The Latina plant is the last of the four Italian nuclear power plants to obtain a decommissioning decree.

After considering the opinion of the National Inspectorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ISIN) and the other competent institutions, the Ministry of Economic Development issued the decree on 20 May. ISIN is the independent regulatory authority responsible for nuclear safety and radiation protection. The decree establishes the conditions and requirements that regulate the execution of operations in the first phase of decommissioning.

The main activities envisaged during this initial phase of decommissioning concern the dismantling of the six boilers, with a total weight of over 3600 tonnes, and the lowering of the reactor building height from 53 to 38 metres. Buildings and auxiliary systems will also be dismantled. These operations are in addition to those already carried out or in progress at the plant.

By the end of this phase, all previous radioactive wastes generated through the operation of the plant or those produced by the dismantling of structures, systems and plant components will be stored safely at the site. These wastes will be stored both in a new temporary storage facility and in some specifically adapted reactor building premises. This initial phase of decommissioning the Latina plant is expected to be completed in 2027 and to cost EUR270 million (USD302 million).

With the availability of a planned national repository, it will be possible to start the second and final phase of the decommissioning of the plant with the dismantling of the graphite gas reactor. Once all the radioactive waste has been transferred to the repository and the temporary storage facilities demolished, the site will be released, without radiological restrictions, and returned to the community for its reuse.

“We are pleased with the issuance of this decree, the fifth after those obtained for the Bosco Marengo [fuel fabrication] plant and the Trino, Garigliano and Caorso [nuclear power] plants,” said Sogin CEO Emanuele Fontani. “This is a crucial step for the closure of the Italian nuclear cycle, which allows us to get to the heart of the decommissioning of the Latina plant. This measure confirms the fruitful collaboration between the various institutional subjects involved in the dismantling of nuclear plants.”

The Latina plant, comprising a single 210 MWe Magnox graphite gas-cooled reactor, began operating in January 1964. It was permanently shut in December 1987 as a result of the Italian referendum on nuclear power that followed the April 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Sogin took over ownership of the site in November 1999.

June 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | decommission reactor, EUROPE | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Archives
- May 2026 (235)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
Categories
- 1
  - Arclight's Vision
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
  - business and costs
    - employment
    - marketing
  - climate change
  - culture and arts
  - ENERGY
    - renewable
      - decentralised
      - energy storage
  - environment
    - oceans
    - water
  - health
    - children
    - psychology – mental health
    - radiation
    - social effects
    - women
  - history
  - indigenous issues
  - Legal
    - deaths by radiation
    - legal
  - marketing of nuclear
  - media
    - investigative journalism
    - Wikileaks
  - opposition to nuclear
  - PERSONAL STORIES
  - politics
    - psychology and culture
      - Trump – personality
    - public opinion
    - USA election 2024
    - USA elections 2016
  - politics international
  - Religion and ethics
  - safety
    - incidents
  - secrets,lies and civil liberties
    - civil liberties
  - spinbuster
    - Education
  - technology
    - reprocessing
    - Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
    - space travel
  - Uranium
  - wastes
    - – plutonium
    - decommission reactor
  - weapons and war
    - Atrocities
    - depleted uranium
  - Women
- 2 WORLD
  - ANTARCTICA
  - ARCTIC
  - ASIA
    - Burma
    - China
    - India
    - Indonesia
    - Japan
    - Malaysia
    - Mongolia
    - North Korea
    - Pakistan
    - South Korea
    - Taiwan
    - Turkey
    - Vietnam
  - EUROPE
    - Belarus
    - Bulgaria
    - Denmark
    - Finland
    - France
    - Germany
    - Greece
    - Ireland
    - Italy
    - Kazakhstan
    - Kyrgyzstan
    - Russia
    - Spain
    - Sweden
    - Switzerland
    - UK
    - Ukraine
  - MIDDLE EAST
    - Afghanistan
    - Egypt
    - Gaza
    - Iran
    - Iraq
    - Israel
    - Jordan
    - Libya
    - Saudi Arabia
    - Syria
    - Turkey
    - United Arab Emirates
  - NORTH AMERICA
    - Canada
    - USA
      - election USA 2020
  - OCEANIA
    - New Zealand
    - Philippines
  - SOUTH AMERICA
    - Brazil
- ACTION
- AFRICA
  - Kenya
  - Malawi
  - Mali
  - Namibia
  - Niger
  - Nigeria
  - Somalia
  - South Africa
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
  - thorium
- Reference
  - Reference archives
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Anti–nuclear resistance in Russia: problems, protests, reprisals

Nuclear energy: failures and lies

Czech Fiscal Council warns on the long-term risk of financing a new nuclear reactor

Russian city Severodvinsk, (near site of nuclear accident) sealed off due to Covid-19

Nuclear submarine accidents contaminating Russia’s Far East

Russia will now allow use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear strike

Uranium mining protests in Russia

Activists, despite government oppression, campaign for decommissioning of Russia’s aging nuclear reactors

French state-controlled utility EDF has to inspect valve leaks at Flamanville, Taishan, Finland nuclear sites

Deep concern over environmental cost of planned Sizewell C nuclear station

Most UK pension providers are investing in nuclear weapons companies

Climate Experts Predict ‘Grim Future’ For Nuclear Power

Assange too sick to attend the very unjust process of the UK extradition hearings

UK’s Sizewell nuclear plan in doubt, due to cost and China’s involvement?

France goes back to its restrictive nuclear compensation law affecting Polynesian nuclear test survivors

Latina plant, the last of Italy’s 4 nuclear power stations to be dismantled

1 This Month

Categories

Pages

Archives

Categories

RSS

Site info