MoD criticised over failure to dispose of retired nuclear submarines https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-03/mod-criticised-over-failure-to-dispose-of-retired-nuclear-submarines/ The Ministry of Defence has been condemned for a “dismal” failure to dispose of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines.
The MoD has submarines which have been in storage longer than they have been in service and the UK now has twice as many submarines in storage as it does in service.
The National Audit Office (NAO) said the department has not disposed of any of the 20 boats no longer in service since 1980.
Some of these vessels still contain nuclear fuel and the failure to address the issue risks damaging the UK’s international reputation as a “responsible nuclear power”.
The issue was raised during Prime Minister’s Questions by Labour MP Luke Pollard who asked whether the prime minister will extend the nuclear clean up to include all the royal navy submarines.
Mrs May responded to say the MoD will continue to work with the nuclear decommissioning service to achieve “steady state disposal of our laid up submarines.”
The estimated cost of disposing of a submarine is £96 million, the NAO said.
Decommissioned vessels are being stored at Devonport and Rosyth, while arrangements are made to safely dispose of them and the radioactive waste they contain.
No submarines have been defuelled since 2004, when regulators said facilities did not meet required standards.
The process is not due to start again until 2023 and has been delayed for 11 years, with a £100 million cost increase to £275 million, a £12 million annual bill for maintaining and storing the nine fuelled submarines and pressure on dock space at Devonport.
The MoD has put its total future liability for maintaining and disposing of the 20 stored and 10 in-service nuclear-powered boats at £7.5 billion over the next 120 years, underlining the long-term nature of nuclear waste.
The Government said the ministry “needs to get a grip urgently” on the matter.
Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: “For more than 20 years the Ministry of Defence has been promising to dismantle its out-of-service nuclear submarines and told my committee last year that it would now address this dismal lack of progress.
“It has still not disposed of any of the 20 submarines decommissioned since 1980 and does not yet know fully how to do it.
“The disposal programmes have been beset by lengthy delays and spiralling costs, with taxpayers footing the bill.
“The ministry needs to get a grip urgently before we run out of space to store and maintain submarines and we damage our reputation as a responsible nuclear power.”
The vessels being stored include the first submarines used to carry the UK’s nuclear deterrent – the Polaris boats HMS Revenge, HMS Renown, HMS Repulse and HMS Resolution.
Attack submarine HMS Conqueror, which sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano during the Falklands War is another of the boats in storage.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: ““The disposal of nuclear submarines is a complex and challenging undertaking.
“We remain committed to the safe, secure and cost-effective de-fuelling and dismantling of all decommissioned nuclear submarines as soon as practically possible.”
April 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, wastes, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
The MoD Has Blown £500m on Storing Old Nuclear Subs http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2019/04/the-mod-has-blown-500m-on-storing-old-nuclear-subs/, By Gary Cutlack on 04 Apr 2019
Fans of the history of the UK’s submarine fleet will be pleased to know we have numerous classic old nuclear-powered subs in various storage sites around the country, although government financial watchdogs aren’t best pleased about it, as the lifetime cost to the Ministry of Defence for storing these ancient subs has now breached the £500m mark.
They’re not being stored for the greater good or to teach future generations about war etc. — they’re being stored because decommissioning 1960s and 1970s nuclear technology is extremely hard. Hence, 20 of our retired nuclear-powered subs have been sitting around, some since 1980, waiting to be dismantled and have their insides made safe.
This collection also includes all four of the Resolution class submarines that were designed and built in the 1960s to carry the Polaris nuclear missiles, and continued notionally defending us until the 1990s. The National Audit Office says nine of the 20 decaying subs in long-term storage still contain some nuclear material, and suggests there’s a total decommissioning cost of £96m to be found to make them all safe and recycle the clean bits into drones. [NAO via BBC]
April 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, wastes, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Christian campaigners are calling on Westminster Abbey to think again about hosting a service which is marking 50 years since the introduction of the UK’s nuclear deterrent at sea.
The famous London church will be used on May 3 by the Royal Navy.
The service is expected to include prayers for peace around the word.
Russell Whiting from the Christian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has questioned why the Abbey would want to host an event like this.
Speaking to Premier, he said: “During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers they will be called the children of God’.
“I don’t believe that we can call ourselves peacemakers whilst we possess a weapon that can destroy creation, and it is a creation after all, that we have been given to be stewards of.”
While some have labelled it a “celebration” or a “thanksgiving service”, Westminster Abbey has distanced itself from those particular words.
In a statement to Premier, a spokesman said: “The service marking the 50 years of the continuous at sea deterrent is not a service of thanksgiving or a celebration of nuclear armaments.
“The service will recognise the commitment of the Royal Navy to effective peace-keeping through the deterrent over the past fifty years and will pray for peace throughout the world.”
Russell Whiting told Premier he remains unconvinced.
“The Royal Navy’s press release announcing this service described it as a celebration,” he said. “[The Abbey] says it’s not going to be a thanksgiving but the invitations that have gone out describe this as a national service of thanksgiving.
“It may well be that Westminster Abbey has one thing in mind, but it’s clear that the Ministry of Defence has something quite different.”
The Christian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament says it will protest at the event if it goes ahead.
Whiting said he doesn’t object to a service going ahead as long as it isn’t in a place of Christian worship.
April 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Religion and ethics, UK |
Leave a comment
Cumbria Trust 2nd April 2019 At the Silloth Town Council meeting held on 11 March 2019 it was
“RESOLVED that a letter be sent to say that Silloth Town Council will not
be volunteering to be a site for a GDF and that we don’t want it in our
area” which was in response to The Radioactive Waste Management –
Consultation on how they will evaluate potential sites for a GDF in the
future in England and Wales.
https://cumbriatrust.wordpress.com/2019/04/02/its-definitely-no-to-a-gdf-from-silloth-town-council/
April 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
opposition to nuclear, politics, UK, wastes |
Leave a comment
David Lowry’s Blog 1st April 2019 Last night I submitted my latest (of dozens) of responses to a Government
or nuclear industry sector public consultation on nuclear policy, this time
on the flawed machinations of trying to find site or sites where nuclear
waste can be disposed of.
I strongly complained that previous submissions
had been entirely ignored, which had reduced the incentive to commit to
researching and preparing detailed submission this time. The same complaint
was included in the Cumbria Trust submission, which asserted: “BEIS and its
predecessors have a track record of issuing consultation documents and
choosing to ignore responses that go against their preconceived plans.” My
own submission was very short, but appended the very long evidence I
submitted year ago, which was ignored, with the demand it be heeded this
time.
http://drdavidlowry.blogspot.com/2019/04/nuclear-waste-very-long-term.html
April 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Times 3rd April 2019 Delaying the disposal of the Royal Navy’s retired submarine fleet has
cost the taxpayer £900 million, according to the Whitehall spending
watchdog. None of the 20 submarines that have left service since 1980 has
been fully defuelled or dismantled.
They include HMS Conqueror, which sank
the General Belgrano in the Falklands conflict in 1982, and the four
Polaris vessels that carried Britain’s nuclear deterrent until the
mid-1990s.
A National Audit Office report published today says that while
it is expensive to scrap the submarines, at £96 million per boat, delaying
the disposal programme is also costly, adding £900 million to the total
bill so far. Each decommissioned submarine costs £12 million a year to
store and maintain.
Meg Hillier, chairman of the Commons public accounts
committee, heaped scorn on the “dismal lack of progress” and
“spiralling costs”. She told the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to “get a
grip urgently before we run out of space to store and maintain submarines
and we damage our reputation as a responsible nuclear power”.
The budget
for the programme to dismantle retired submarines and remove their
radioactive parts has soared by £800 million, or 50 per cent, due to a
15-year delay in rolling out a tested approach. In addition, the 11-year
delay in the project to remove irradiated fuel from the nine retired
nuclear submarines has seen the budget rise by £100 million, or 57 per
cent. Regulators halted the defuelling of submarines in 2004 after
government facilities failed to meet required standards. The process is not
due to start again until 2023.
April 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, wastes, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
|
 The even madder plan to build a new nuclear plant on the beach March 31, 2019 by beyondnuclearinternational The case against Sizewell C, By Linda Pentz GunterIn December 2018 we ran an article — The mad plan to store nuclear waste on the beach— which has become one of our most read stories. Now, as the climate crisis worsens, here comes a possibly even madder plan — a new nuclear power plant on a beach with a shifting coastline famous for erosion…….
The Sizewell reactors sit on a windswept beach just yards from a sea that has already consumed ancient villages as the coastline changed and eroded over the centuries. Now the sea level rise that will come with climate change promises in time to drown a few more, most likely including the Sizewell nuclear site. Undeterred, the French government nuclear company, EDF, insists it will build a new reactor at Sizewell — one of its ill-fated EPR design that is already struggling at Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Hinkley. Just from a climate change point of view, it is an exercise in insanity. But there is so much more at stake.
The local activist group, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) has been challenging the EDF plan for years, even as Sizewell sits permanently second in the queue behind the ever more delayed and ever more exorbitant sister site at Hinkley C in Somerset, where EDF is attempting to build two EPRs. Despite the technical problems, cost over-runs and the obscene strike price EDF scored off the UK government — which would almost triple current electricity rates — the company insists in can build Sizewell C more cheaply than Hinkley C and that construction could start within the next three years. It’s a pretty tall order and, arguably, total French farce.
What would actually happen to the Suffolk coastline and the surrounding villages, towns and countryside, is so alarming that TASC has ramped up its urgency in appealing to a likely somewhat otherwise distracted UK government — that is busy self-destructing over Brexit — to cancel Sizewell C.
In an eloquent petition, (which UK residents can sign at this link), TASC has laid out the case for halting the Sizewell C planning process immediately, arguing that in “report after report” nuclear power has shown “to be superfluous to UK climate change, cost and electricity generating targets. Nuclear is too expensive, a security risk and leaves a legacy of radioactive waste.” The petition will be delivered in person to the UK Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy.
On March 12, the group delivered an earlier petition, signed by 1,500 local people, to the Suffolk County Council’s Conservative leader Matthew Hicks, ahead of a cabinet meeting to discuss Sizewell C.
TASC also held an art exhibition to draw attention to the risks at Sizewell……….For more information please see the TASC website and find them on Twitter at: @SayNo2SizewellC https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/03/31/the-even-madder-plan-to-build-a-new-nuclear-plant-on-the-beach/
|
|
April 1, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, safety, UK |
Leave a comment
ABC News 2 Apr 19, While some view the British parliament as a symbol of political stasis since the 2016 Brexit referendum, other Brits have utilised Westminster’s symbolic power to press — literally and figuratively — for faster action on climate change.
On Monday, members of climate change action group Extinction Rebellion stripped half-naked in the House of Common’s glass-walled public gallery during a Brexit debate, and some appeared to have glued themselves to the glass.
As MPs started yet another day of lengthy debate on how or even whether the country should leave the European Union, 14 protesters stripped to their underpants to show slogans painted on their backs, including: “Climate justice now”.
……. more acts of civil disobedience would occur in the lead up to the group’s ‘International Rebellion’ on climate change inaction slated for April 15.
In the moments afterward, numerous people took to Twitter to poke fun at a parliament that has otherwise been considered stale and mired in a prolonged Brexit debate….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-02/british-protesters-bare-bottoms-in-parliament-to-protest-climate/10961468
April 1, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Bristol selected to advise energy industry on safety of nuclear equipment, University of 
Bristol 28 March 2019, The University of Bristol has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to work with major national and international players in the energy market to ensure that all nuclear equipment meets required standards.
Under the partnership with EQUALLETM (an alliance of Framatome, Bureau Veritas, Doosan Babcock), Bristol will act as an expert guide for EQUALLE’s partners and suppliers, undertaking seismic qualification of equipment going onto nuclear power plants in the UK. ……
Bristol’s Faculty of Engineering has been heavily involved with UK civil nuclear stakeholders.
Already working with EDF Energy, substantial activities have been taking place to support the case for the UK Nuclear Plants life extension………. Thomas Epron, VP Global sales, Framatome’s Installed Base Business Unit, said: “This new partnership in equipment qualification with Bristol University is an additional step to build a comprehensive offer to the UK nuclear industry…….. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2019/march/nuclear-partnership.html
March 30, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Education, UK |
Leave a comment
Leader Live 22nd March 2019 , HOLYWELL councillors were quick to back a bid to reject nuclear waste being dumped in the town. Earlier this year, North Wales residents were consulted in the search for a site to dump 60 years’ worth of the UK’s most dangerous radioactive waste.
At their monthly meeting, town council members were quick to support the motion that Holywell would not become the host of a nuclear waste dump. Plaid Cymru’s Jill Evans MEP sent the town council an email on the subject that was read out at the meeting. “We are writing to you to urge your council to pass a motion stating that your community
will not volunteer to host an underground waste dump.
CND Cymru will keep a record of every community, town and county council that passes such a motion, and submit a list to the government’s consultation as part of our submission to the consultation.” From the end of March, this list of
councils who support this motion will be available on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament’s website
https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/17517980.council-says-that-holywell-will-not-host-nuclear-waste-dump/
March 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
opposition to nuclear, UK |
Leave a comment
Daily Post 22nd March 2019 , Any plans to find a site to store nuclear waste in Denbighshire will be strongly resisted despite an offer of £1 million just to listen to a government pitch for the plans. The UK government is searching for sites that will allow nuclear waste to be buried.
As part of the process county councils have been offered £1 million to listen to the government sales pitch for the scheme. If a council agrees to the start of work on taking in the waste they will be then given £2.5 million if authorities take part in
the planning stage. Denbighshire councillors will be presented with details of the scheme when they meet next week but already opposition councillors have said there is no way they would support such a move.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/1m-sweetener-store-nuclear-waste-16015159
March 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, wastes |
Leave a comment
No2Nucear Power March 2019, EDF Energy has been running its third stage of public consultation on the proposals for a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. The consultation closes on 29 March 2019. (1) As with earlier consultations on proposed new nuclear stations, the principle of nuclear power generation is deemed to have been settled during the process of drawing up National Policy Statements. (2) Nevertheless, with the anniversaries of Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island all occurring during March, this seems like a good opportunity to re-visit the risk of a nuclear accident at the proposed nuclear stations.
A severe accident scenario was postulated by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland in 2013. (3) This would involve a loss of coolant combined with a bypass of the containment. Core damage would be initially delayed by actions of the plant operators, but eventually takes place after 12.75 hours. The release of fission products to the environment starts 12.8 hours after reactor shutdown, and lasts for 35.2 hours eventually stopping 48 hour after reactor shutdown.
Nuclear engineer, the late John Large, expanded on this type of scenario pointing out that the fuel core would completely melt after about 16 hours and the corium mass slumps to the bottom of the Reactor Pressure Bessel (RPV), thereafter burning through the RPV steel shell to fall and slump onto the primary containment floor. At this point in time, the hydrogen gas in the RPV circuit is released into the primary containment whereupon it reacts with the air in the containment, deflagrating and exploding with sufficient might to breach the containment surety and, with this, the first phase release of radioactivity to the atmosphere for dispersion and deposition further afield commences. He said this scenario is very similar to the events at Fukushima. (4)
According to EDF Energy´s Environmental Statement for Hinkley Point C (Appendix 7E “Assessment of Transboundary impacts”), the likely impacts of an accident do not extend beyond the county of Somerset and the Severn Estuary. In contrast a report for the Austrian Environment Agency says severe accidents at HPC with considerable releases of caesium-137 cannot be ruled out, although their probability may be low. There is no convincing rationale why such accidents should not be addressed in the Environmental Statement (ES); quite to the contrary, it would appear rather evident that they should be included in the assessment since their effects can be widespread and long-lasting. (5)
The RPII Severe Accident Scenario suggests a radioactive release of I-131 and Cs-137 amounting to 610,000TBq which is quite a bit larger than Fukushima. Cs-137 has a half-life of 30 years, whereas I-131 only has a half- life of 8 days. So Cs-137 is much more important in the longer term. With its longer half-life Cs-137 is around for much longer. Having said that I-131 distribution after an accident is important when looking at the incidence of thyroid cancer. Austria had the second highest average I-131 deposition density, outside Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, after Chernobyl. (As ever, whether there was an increase in thyroid cancer in Austria after Chernobyl is controversial – see TORCH 2016).
Spent Fuel Storage Unlike spent fuel generated by existing UK nuclear reactors, it is not the intention of future reactor operators to reprocess spent fuel from new nuclear reactors, so spent fuel will almost certainly remain on-site for decades, rather than being transported off-site to Sellafield as it is at the moment at most sites apart from Sizewell B. Although it is possible that spent fuel might start to be transported off site during the 60 year lifetime of new reactors, prospective operators generally take the view that it is prudent to plan to store all of the lifetime arisings of the planned reactors on-site probably in spent fuel storage ponds. At Hinkley Point C, EDF is planning to be able to extend the life of the storage ponds for up to 100 years after the reactors close. (14)
A recent study in the US detailed how a major fire in a spent fuel pond “could dwarf the horrific consequences of the Fukushima accident.” The author Frank von Hippel, a nuclear security expert at Princeton University, who teamed with Princeton’s Michael Schoeppner on the modelling exercise said “We’re talking about trillion-dollar consequences.” (15) This would clearly involve major transboundary radioactive releases much larger than those suggested in the RPII scenario, because the spent fuel store could contain up to 60 years’ worth of spent fuel.
According to the Austrian Analysis PSA 2 results (in the Pres-Construction Safety Reports by EDF and Areva) show that a possible severe accident in the spent fuel pool could result in a release of 1,780,000 TBq of Cs-137. (16) In other words, the greatest risk is one that could remain in place until at least 2130. …………..
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NuClearNewsNo115.pdf
March 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
safety, UK |
Leave a comment
Councils call for fresh look at nuclear power as current policy ‘flawed’, East Anglian Daily Times, 24 March 2019, Richard Cornwell
Campaigners fighting proposals for new-build nuclear power plants have dismissed the need for Sizewell C – and called on the Government to reassess future electricity usage and generation.
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) group, which represents 40 councils across the country, believes renewable energy alternatives, with energy efficiency and energy storage, are more effective options.
The group points to the recent scrapping of the Sellafield Moorside development, and the decision to halt the Wylfa B and Oldbury B projects as evidence of the state of the new-build programme.
NFLA steering committee and English Forum chairman David Blackburn said: “In our submission, NFLA shows in detail why the Government’s ongoing support for new nuclear is flawed and that there is no need for such reactors at a time when the renewable sector is rapidly moving forward.
“Sizewell C also has some serious issues over the waste it would produce remaining on site for many decades, and the serious accident scenarios international agencies have
developed suggesting much more alarming consequences than EDF foresee.
“If the local councils in Suffolk are not particularly impressed with EDF’s current proposals, then there is indeed much work for it to do. NFLA see no ‘need’ for new nuclear at a time of major changes to future energy use.”
New research on nuclear accidents shows that a Chernobyl level incident at Sizewell C could require large areas of southern and central England to be evacuated.
NFLA claims electricity generation has fallen 16% in the past 14 years despite a 10% rise in population. ……..
People wanting to respond to the consultation can complete a questionnaire at www.sizewellc.co.uk or email comments to info@sizewellc.co.uk or by post to Freepost SZC Consultation. https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/nuclear-free-local-authorities-views-sizewell-c-1-5955745
March 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
opposition to nuclear, UK |
Leave a comment
Is Bradwell B a risk to nationalsecurity? Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG)21 March 2019
Andy Blowers considers whether the ‘golden relationship’ with China might be a Trojan Horse in the BANNG Column for Regional Life March 2019. The state visit of the Chinese President Xi Jinping, in October 2015 proclaimed the beginning of a ‘golden era’ in Sino-British relations. The deal was sealed with the promise that China would be offered the opportunity to construct a new nuclear power station at Bradwell with a state-owned company, CGN, using its own technology. In return the Chinese would provide the lion’s share (two-thirds) of investment in the project, with its partner the French state backed-company EDF finding the rest.
The jubilation of the Cameron Government turned to scepticism when his successor’s Joint Chief of Staff, Nick Timothy, declared, ‘The Government is selling our national security to China’. Fears that a critical part of sensitive infrastructure could be open to control by a potentially hostile power have continued to cloud the project. The fact that China, like the UK, is a military as well as civil nuclear power makes the issue of security and control especially worrying.
Bradwell B – a Trojan Horse?
Concerns about security threats are not without foundation. There is the broad charge that China plays by its own rules and the United States has long claimed that China has stolen American atomic secrets…….
Fears of Chinese infiltration in national security have led the United States to ban foreign ownership or control of nuclear power plants (see Box). No such injunction has been proclaimed in the UK; rather, at this very moment, the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation is deeply engaged in the process which may lead to approval for the Chinese Hualong One reactor design, thereby paving the way for overseas expansion of Chinese nuclear technology and the inevitable proliferation of security concerns. Bradwell B could be the Trojan Horse that leads into the heart of our national security …..
nothing is said at all about what will be a deteriorating nuclear complex with stores of highly radioactive nuclear wastes strewn on a disappearing coast for the indefinite future. And will the Chinese still be around when the risks increase?
The Chinese are intent on accelerating the Bradwell B programme to begin construction before the end of the next decade. That is a tall order but they have the resources and apparent determination. But, the risks to national and local security and safety from a nuclear power station constructed and controlled by a foreign power cannot easily be allayed. Despite all the soothing words and promises of energy security, Bradwell B, if it materialises, may be a dangerous and unpredictable cuckoo in the nest. https://www.banng.info/news/is-bradwell-b-a-risk-to-national-security/
March 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, safety, UK |
Leave a comment
Northampton Chronicle 21st March 2019 , Campaigners have raised concerns about nuclear warheads travelling through
Northampton after a convoy passed an accident-prone stretch of motorway.
Nuclear warheads are regularly driven from Burghfield Atomic Weapons
Establishment (AWE) near Reading to Coulport, Scotland, for loading onto
the Trident missile submarines.
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/fears-raised-as-nuclear-warhead-convoy-passes-through-northampton-1-8859088
March 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
safety, UK |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 