 |
| HOME |
| Clubs,Societies and Organisations |
| Churches in Mersea |
| Sports Clubs |
| Events Diary |
| Contact Us | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
COMMUNITY > BRADWELL |
|
Bradwell old (Magnox) Nuclear Power Station opposite Mersea |
| NOVEMBER 2010 WILL THERE BE A NEW NUCLEAR POWER STATION AT BRADWELL? WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR DEFINITE NEWS FROM THE COALITION GOVERNMENT IN THE MEANTIME WEST MERSEA TOWN COUNCIL BRADWELL MONITORING COMMITTEE HAVE PUT FORWARD THEIR CONCERNS REGARDING NEW BUILD AT BRADWELL AS FOLLOWS A copy of the following concerns have been sent to DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) on behalf of West Mersea Town Council by the Bradwell Monitoring Committee (West Mersea Town Council Sub Committee). A copy has also been forwarded to Bernard Jenkins MP and Robert Judd at CBC - the Consultation period ended on February 22nd 2010 (Department of the Energy and Climate Change) BY BRADWELL MONITORING SUB COMMITTEE a) Risk of incident from flooding by rising sea levels and by storm surge due to global warming. A report of Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre published in March 2007 concluded that the Bradwell site would be at risk of flooding from rising sea levels and increased frequency of storm surges, to which the area is prone, arising from global warming. The susceptibility of the site to flooding, which is defended only by an earth bank, is highlighted by the Environment Agency Flood Map which is understood to require updating for current maximum flood levels such as from storm surge. It is of concern as to how the site can be properly defended from flooding given the uncertainty over future sea level rises and storm surge frequency and height . In addition it is of concern that the emergency services may be unable to cope with both a major flooding incident affecting the site and nearby communities, as in 1953, and a resultant radiological incident. b) German Government Research indicating increase in leukaemia within 5 km of nuclear sites The German Government equivalent of the UK Health Protection Agency commissioned a report into “Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants” (KiKK ) which was published in December 2007 and found a 2.2-fold increase in leukaemia and a 1.6-fold increase in solid cancers among children under five years old living within 5 km of all German nuclear sites. The town of West Mersea is only 4 kms under the prevailing 15 kmh SW wind. Surveys undertaken in this country are not so comprehensive in terms of period and number of sites included and do not weight results by taking account of prevailing wind which may distort data eg with larger towns such as Maldon upwind to smaller towns such as West Mersea downwind or discount recent increases in local population. c) Evacuation, including uncontrolled self-evacuation, of Mersea Island in the event of an incident In the event of an accident it is of concern that evacuation of 7,500 residents could not be arranged as access onto the Island by the emergency services and off the Island by the public is often blocked for several hours each day by tidal flooding. In addition there is a transient summer population of up to 5,000 tourists as in caravans, tents and as day visitors in cars without the shelter of permanent buildings who, as required under nuclear emergency planning as in the Sizewell off-site emergency plan , would require immediate evacuation in the event of an incident. It is difficult to understand how the evacuation of the Island could be arranged and it is considered that if the public was advised to remain on the Island during an emergency it is probable many would attempt to self- evacuate in anticipation of an incident worsening ie the problem is of organised and non organised evacuation. It is also of concern, as outlined following exercises by the Governments Nuclear Emergency Planning & Liason Group which simulated the crash of an aircraft on the old Bradwell site, that site emergency plans refer only to credible accidents and not to outcomes of deliberate acts such as that of terrorism. d) Impact of cooling water intake, outfall and biocides on fishing and oyster industry and ecosystem Many fish, spawn and other forms of marine are killed by the intake of water for cooling purposes from filter grids and the water itself which in the process is heated beyond temperatures which they can survive and with reduced levels of dissolved oxygen necessary to support marine life. In addition the consequent rise in sea temperature in the River Blackwater is likely to have a significant impact on its ecosystem. Cooling systems also use biocides to prevent fouling of pipe-work and even simple biocides such as chlorine will sub-react in water to form more complex and potent biocides with increased half-life, such biocides are likely to affect the eco-system. The volume and velocity of water also causes scouring of the sea-bed resulting in dead areas. Furthermore the River Blackwater has a low refresh rate compared to the open sea meaning that in comparison the incidence of damage from intakes and outfalls is higher than in the open sea. Both the commercial inshore fishing and oyster industries, are directly and indirectly important to the local economy. It is of concern that the eco-system of the estuary will be affected by this development and in turn the local industries dependent upon it. The recovery of the eco-system was noted by oystermen after the closure of the old site. e) Storage of highly radioactive spent fuel on site for 60 years of operation and a further 100 years. |
| The design criteria for the new plant and the physical characteristics of the spent fuel require that the proposed new nuclear power station will be required to retain all of the highly radioactive spent fuel produced on the site for up to 100 years after the new plant itself has been closed ie about 160 years from its first operation. This infers that the proposals are not only for an operating site (the construction of a new power station) but also for the storage of radioactive waste on site (the construction of a radioactive waste store) ie that there are in effect two proposals. The public does not appear to have been notified of this in notices advertising public consultation meetings. The earlier proposed siting of only a low level radioactive waste store by NIREX in the same area met with considerable local opposition. It may be assumed increased local opposition would exist to the proposed storage of both low, medium and high level radioactive waste at the site. It is also noted that the Bradwell LCLC commissioned a MORI poll which expressed a preferred site end state of the old site of its restoration to a green-field site.It is now understood that old sites adjacent to proposed new sites may not be restored by the NDA to that state which appears contrary to the wishes of the public f) Environmental effect on wetlands, birds and adjoining Ramsar, SSSI and other designated areas The proposed development adjoins an SSSI and Ramsar site and the estuary of the River Blackwater is under the EEEMS management of English Nature. The industrialisation of an area of this importance with reactors, radioactive waste stores, cooling towers and pylons may prejudice those designations. Ramsar sites in England are protected as European sites, as set out in the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). Both the proposed site, which as purchased by the developers extends from the current site to St Peters Chapel, and the adjoining Ramsar wetlands are important habitats for birdlife which may itself be affected and are an important example of a natural or near-natural wetland types found within the bio-geographic region. g) Uncertainty over scale of proposals due to sale of the site under nuclear power competition rules The site owners EDF have undertaken under competition rules to sell the Bradwell site to another developer if they obtain permission to develop their site at Sizewell site. The Spanish energy company Iberdrola, as potential purchasers, have suggested that by using both direct sea water cooling and cooling towers the site could accommodate up to three new reactors and associated spent fuel storage. Given that Sizewell is included as a site in the DECC draft statement it appears likely that the Bradwell site will in turn be sold to another developer such as Iberdrola. Such proposals would magnify concerns raised such as risk, environmental impact, storage of waste, visual amenity. h) The effect on the increasingly important local tourist industry and on residential house prices The tourist industry has become important to West Mersea, with about 5,000 tourists on the Island in the summer, and many local businesses are directly or indirectly dependent upon it. The substantial visual blight caused by this scale of development and perceived risks or stigma associated with the proximity of a new power station with nuclear reactors, cooling towers and radioactive waste may prejudice this industry which is essentially based on the non-industrialised coastal location. In addition residents may be affected by an impact on house prices which are supported by the non-industrialised coastal location. While some major infrastructure developments offer compensation to residents for the loss in value of there homes it would appear this is not offered in the proposals. i) Risk of location adjacent to another nuclear site being decommissioned ie as a hazardous process. The Government has stipulated that new nuclear plants cannot be built near to any hazardous industrial processes. The delays in the decommissioning of the adjacent old nuclear power station suggests decommissioning of the old plant, with its two reactors and cores still to be dismantled and fuel element debris (FED in underground storage still to be removed and stabilised, will not be complete before construction of any new plant. These processes incorporate “reference accidents” requiring emergency planning in the decommissioning programme thereby acknowledging decommissioning as a hazardous process. The HSE Nuclear Installations Inspectorate report on FED storage in November 1998 also expresses concern of “fire, explosion and escape of radioactivity”. j) Absence of earlier “volunteering” principle in the planning process for radioactive waste stores. |
| The proposals infer that so called "orphan" radioactive waste ie with no home, will be created at the site by a new plant with no later disposal route being determined. Unless a disposal route and timescale is determined the site becomes by default both that of a nuclear power station and a radioactive waste repository, upon which no evaluation of risks or local consultation has taken place. The Government had publicised a process of "volunteering" by communities to host stores for radioactive waste, however contrary to this there is no such process of “volunteering” for the storage of low, intermediate and high level radioactive waste to be stored at the proposed Bradwell site. k) Concern of both routine and non-routine (accidental) radioactive discharges into the sea and air. The new site will be licensed to make routine radioactive discharges into the air and into the River Blackwater within specified limits. In addition there is risk of non-routine ie accidental discharges noting earlier incidents occurring at the old site and elsewhere. These discharges, combined with similar discharges during the decommissioning of the old site, are unlikely to be acceptable to communities such as West Mersea being both down-wind and adjacent to the River Blackwater and who are aware of increasing concern by scientists of the effect of low levels of radioactivity on health. l) Recent factors that may increase the level of risk locally despite improvements in safety of design. While acknowledging problems have occurred both in the construction of new nuclear plants eg in Finland and operation eg in France, that if it is accepted that new plants are safer than older plants by improvements in design, there are now new risks such as of terrorism (especially given the proximity of the site to London), and of rising sea levels and storm surges from global warming, the combined operation of a nuclear plant with the adjacent storage of highly radioactive spent fuel on site, which may not reduce but increase the over-all level of risk that is posed to nearby communities. m) The site is under a major air corridor to serving the London airports increasing the risk of accident. The Bradwell site is under a major flight path to and from various London air-ports. Apart from risks such as deliberate acts of terrorism, as highlighted above, that of accident involving an aircraft crash at the site of a new nuclear power station, radioactive waste store, cooling towers is of concern. It else appears that if the development is to proceed the flight path should be diverted. This may require its diversion over residential areas such as West Mersea which may be unacceptable to local residents. n) Relevance of various earlier incidents at the old site, including of prosecutions, to any new-build. Magnox Electric, when operators of the existing site, were prosecuted and fined in both 2001 and 2009 in Court proceedings brought by the Environment Agency for incidents of accidental radioactive discharges and failure to maintain equipment and a failure to notify the Environment Agency as required of an incident in the required time frame to enable its impact to be assessed. Furthermore an incident in 1963, resulting from the freezing of cooling water intakes in the shallow estuary which was frozen, was only notified to the public in 1988 under the 25 year rule. The community must be confident that both the regulators and in turn and local communities will notified of incidents to enable mitigating action to be taken before construction of any new plant is approved. o) Concern that political, and not physical or economic factors, may influence the choice of the site. The nuclear power station constructed at Hartlepool is close to an industrialised and residential area. Such a location near to an area that uses the power generated is more efficient as it avoids the losses of power that occur in the transmission of electricity over long distances and provides opportunity for use of dissipated heat for industrial and residential purposes. It is of concern that that a comparatively remote location is being chosen for this project to minimise risk to urban areas as users the power generated and this new power station is being located in a rural area for political and not economic reasons as the storage of radioactive waste would be unacceptable in an urban location. p) Concern a decision on siting is fully evaluated not based on the existence of an earlier nuclear site. It is of concern the Bradwell site may be selected for new-build only as it is adjacent to a old site without consideration of the substantial differences in the proposals from the earlier site, both of physical characteristics, eg cooling water requirements and storage of spent fuel etc, or the changes in demographics eg increases in population and problem of evacuation, and local industries such as tourism, that have occurred in the intervening period. It is important that the site is selected on its merits, and not influenced by the existence of an earlier site, so fully addressing the concerns raised. q) Concern the construction of a nuclear site may preclude options for renewable power generation The WMTC Committee has agreed to scope the options for further use of renewable energy sources in the area to complement the existing and planned wind turbine facilities. This includes the use of a tidal barrage which may also serve to provide flood protection to West Mersea and other communities on the River Blackwater against rising sea levels and storm surges. A tidal barrage may be prevented by the construction of a nuclear power station due to its requirement for cooling water. r) Concern of the risk and effect of further earthquake with reference to the major earthquake of 1884 A major earthquake occurred in the area in 1884, the “Colchester Earthquake” or “Great British Earthquake” being the most severe reported in this country for over 400 years. Although this was centred south of Colchester towards Mersea Island it also caused much structural damage in the Bradwell area. While assurances have been provided that the reactors themselves would be resistent to an earthquake, no assurance has been received about cooling systems, such as pipe-work on the sea-bed or cooling towers on which they are dependent or facilities for storage of radioactive waste, It is unlikely the emergency services could cope with both an earthquake and radiological incident. |
| The new site will be licensed to make routine radioactive discharges into the air and into the River Blackwater within specified limits. In addition there is risk of non-routine ie accidental discharges noting earlier incidents occurring at the old site and elsewhere. These discharges, combined with similar discharges during the decommissioning of the old site, are unlikely to be acceptable to communities such as West Mersea being both down-wind and adjacent to the River Blackwater and who are aware of increasing concern by scientists of the effect of low levels of radioactivity on health. l) Recent factors that may increase the level of risk locally despite improvements in safety of design. While acknowledging problems have occurred both in the construction of new nuclear plants eg in Finland and operation eg in France, that if it is accepted that new plants are safer than older plants by improvements in design, there are now new risks such as of terrorism (especially given the proximity of the site to London), and of rising sea levels and storm surges from global warming, the combined operation of a nuclear plant with the adjacent storage of highly radioactive spent fuel on site, which may not reduce but increase the over-all level of risk that is posed to nearby communities. m) The site is under a major air corridor to serving the London airports increasing the risk of accident. The Bradwell site is under a major flight path to and from various London air-ports. Apart from risks such as deliberate acts of terrorism, as highlighted above, that of accident involving an aircraft crash at the site of a new nuclear power station, radioactive waste store, cooling towers is of concern. It else appears that if the development is to proceed the flight path should be diverted. This may require its diversion over residential areas such as West Mersea which may be unacceptable to local residents. n) Relevance of various earlier incidents at the old site, including of prosecutions, to any new-build. Magnox Electric, when operators of the existing site, were prosecuted and fined in both 2001 and 2009 in Court proceedings brought by the Environment Agency for incidents of accidental radioactive discharges and failure to maintain equipment and a failure to notify the Environment Agency as required of an incident in the required time frame to enable its impact to be assessed. Furthermore an incident in 1963, resulting from the freezing of cooling water intakes in the shallow estuary which was frozen, was only notified to the public in 1988 under the 25 year rule. The community must be confident that both the regulators and in turn and local communities will notified of incidents to enable mitigating action to be taken before construction of any new plant is approved. o) Concern that political, and not physical or economic factors, may influence the choice of the site. The nuclear power station constructed at Hartlepool is close to an industrialised and residential area. Such a location near to an area that uses the power generated is more efficient as it avoids the losses of power that occur in the transmission of electricity over long distances and provides opportunity for use of dissipated heat for industrial and residential purposes. It is of concern that that a comparatively remote location is being chosen for this project to minimise risk to urban areas as users the power generated and this new power station is being located in a rural area for political and not economic reasons as the storage of radioactive waste would be unacceptable in an urban location. p) Concern a decision on siting is fully evaluated not based on the existence of an earlier nuclear site. It is of concern the Bradwell site may be selected for new-build only as it is adjacent to a old site without consideration of the substantial differences in the proposals from the earlier site, both of physical characteristics, eg cooling water requirements and storage of spent fuel etc, or the changes in demographics eg increases in population and problem of evacuation, and local industries such as tourism, that have occurred in the intervening period. It is important that the site is selected on its merits, and not influenced by the existence of an earlier site, so fully addressing the concerns raised. q) Concern the construction of a nuclear site may preclude options for renewable power generation The WMTC Committee has agreed to scope the options for further use of renewable energy sources in the area to complement the existing and planned wind turbine facilities. This includes the use of a tidal barrage which may also serve to provide flood protection to West Mersea and other communities on the River Blackwater against rising sea levels and storm surges. A tidal barrage may be prevented by the construction of a nuclear power station due to its requirement for cooling water. r) Concern of the risk and effect of further earthquake with reference to the major earthquake of 1884 A major earthquake occurred in the area in 1884, the “Colchester Earthquake” or “Great British Earthquake” being the most severe reported in this country for over 400 years. Although this was centred south of Colchester towards Mersea Island it also caused much structural damage in the Bradwell area. While assurances have been provided that the reactors themselves would be resistent to an earthquake, no assurance has been received about cooling systems, such as pipe-work on the sea-bed or cooling towers on which they are dependent or facilities for storage of radioactive waste, It is unlikely the emergency services could cope with both an earthquake and radiological incident. |
If you'd like to see an article covering the debate over the use of nuclear reactors as power sources click on this link to go to the Wikipedia - Nuclear power debate Alternatively to see some of the research that has been done on this highly complex and controversial issue on behalf of the British government - you can look at this paper from the Sustainable Development Commission WMTC is not responsible for the content or views of external internet sites. |
| FED or FUEL ELEMENT DEBRIS AT BRADWELL The Local Community Liaison Council the LCLC were given a full description (with visual aids) of the method involved in disposing of the FED or Fuel Element Debris by “dissolution”. This method is still in the research and development phase. But first, a reminder that Bradwell site is subject to constraints by their “clients” the NDA – Nuclear Decommissioning Authority; the NII – Nuclear Installations Inspectorate; who give them their license to operate and the Environment Agency; who monitor all discharges. During the defuelling period all fuel rods were sent to Sellafield and the Bradwell site was completely defuelled by August 2006. Bradwell Engineers are now in the process of decommissioning the rest of the materials on site at Bradwell including the Fuel Element Debris. Just what is FED? FED is Fuel Element Debris, a Magnesium Oxide Alloy (hence the name MAGNOX) and comprises the metal cages that once surrounded the nuclear fuel rods in the Bradwell Reactors. Before the fuel rods could be sent away to Sellafield Reprocessing Plant these metal casings had to be removed; the resulting “debris” then became part of the nuclear waste problem needing to be dealt with at the Bradwell site. There are two possible methods of disposing of Fuel Element Debris – Encapsulation and Dissolution. Encapsulation means sealing the metal casings in concrete then storing hefty concrete blocks on site for up to a hundred years. But Bradwell Engineers have put forward Dissolution as the “Best Practical Environmental Option” for disposal; a sub group of the Liaison Committee visited Dungeness where a Dissolution Plant already operates. Dissolution is just as it sounds – the metal casings are “dissolved” down and after treatment subsequently washed away into the sea. If considered acceptable the proposed Dissolution Plant will be sited right beside the Reactors and directly over the vaults containing the debris. All the processes that FED goes through are carried out by robotics. First the FED is retrieved, sorted and then crushed (in the same way as crushing a car at a scrap metal yard). It is then stored in box like “vaults” on site. As FED produces a certain amount of potentially explosive hydrogen it must be constantly scrutinized and interlocking systems ensure that any fire hazard is kept to a minimum. The FED is then placed in vats and saturated with a mix of water and weak nitric acid for four hours and the resulting “liquor” then passed through an iron exchanger. Each stage is carefully monitored and when the radionuclide levels are considered to be at sufficiently low levels – the consequential liquid is discharged into the estuary. When (and if) the Dissolution Plant is running 60 kilograms of filtered and processed Fuel Element Debris will be discharged every six hours – 180 kilograms per day (this sounds a lot but is much less than when the site was operating or during defuelling). The operating life of the Dissolution Plant is reckoned to be about three and a half years. |
| THE GOVERNMENT SAYS YES TO NEW NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS?? Although nuclear power delivers 4 to 5 per cent of UK energy it would be 2020 before the first new nuclear station would be operating (none have ever been built on time or on budget) It is true that nuclear power stations do not emit carbon but no one has yet solved the big problem of waste disposal. Each Reactor produces 20 to 30 tons of spent fuel per year which can remain radioactive for hundreds of years. Some people believe that a nuclear option could distract attention from serious investment in renewable energies like solar - wind and tide NEW REACTORS WILL MOST LIKELY BE THE PWR TYPE PRESSURED WATER REACTORs The new power station Reactor is likely to be a PWR type (Pressured Water Reactor). These are similar to the ones that the Royal Navy use in submarines. Unlike the original Magnox Reactors at Bradwell they have "Secondary Containment" which mean that should the Reactor malfunction, it is still totally enclosed in a concrete sealed unit. WHO OWNS THE LAND FOR NEW NUCLEAR AT BRADWELL? British Energy - bought the land to the west of the present Bradwell site and declared that they were seeking a big business partner to embark on a new nuclear building programme (four different reactor designs are being considered) The site was then sold to EDF - However, in December 2009, EDF put the Bradwell site up for sale |
| BRADWELL - PLANS FOR ON SITE INTERMEDIATE AND LOW LEVEL WASTE STORES Plans have been approved for buildings at Bradwell to be used for the treatment and storage of on site intermediate and low level radioactive waste SALE OF BRITISH NUCLEAR FUELS State owned British Nuclear Fuels - BNFL - has been sold to Energy Solutions a company based in Salt Lake City - Utah. Included in the sale - Magnox Electric - who hold the license to decommission Bradwell on behalf of the NDA - the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority - to which ownership of the Bradwell site was transferred in 2005 |
|
Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group - B.A.N.N.G. are active on the island - their website as follows:- www.banng.org.uk |