Sad but true............Old Nukes are as bad as new nUKes!

They just keepin' on heapin' it on at Oldbury

Sunday, 20 February 2011 09:17

By Ace Hoffman

 Share Link:            

AUK nuclear power plant, Oldbury Unit 2, is getting a six month license extension (through June 2011) so that it can be shut down the same month as Oldbury Unit 1 is scheduled to shut down -- unless further license extensions are granted:  They are also vying for a 2012 closure "in order to use up spare fuel at the site".

What a LOUSY reason to keep a nuclear power plant operating!

Unused nuclear fuel is mathematically about 10 million times safer than so-called "spent" fuel, which is just about the most dangerous and difficult stuff on earth to handle. "Fresh" fuel is not much more dangerous than so-called "depleted" uranium (DU) -- the stuff that soldiers handle "safely" all the time. The main danger from DU occurs when it's been exploded into tiny fragments and vaporized -- at which point it can be inhaled or ingested, and is horrifically poisonous, partially for its heavy metal toxicity characteristics (yecch!), as well as for its radioactivity.

When uranium is in solid form, especially when it's been carefully wrapped in a cladding which has been individually inspected for cracks (at least, it's supposed to have been), it's relatively easy to transport -- about as difficult as transporting DU shells and armor. (Plutonium and MOX-based fuels are not as easy to deal with, but are still MUCH safer before being used in a nuclear reactor.)

A "critical mass" (or "criticality") is achieved in a nuclear power reactor (steadily and predictably, if it operates according to plan -- otherwise it's a "meltdown") or in a nuclear bomb (exponentially more frequently over microseconds of time, if it operates according to plan -- otherwise it's a "dud") by collecting together a large enough "pile" of nuclear fuel.  Once the pile is big enough, or when control rods that prohibit the chain reaction are removed, collisions of decay products with the uranium atoms in the pile cause some of the atoms to "fission" (split or cleave) into (usually two) roughly even-sized chunks, releasing a few additional neutrons, as well as gamma rays and other types of energy in the process.  The neutrons collide with other uranium atoms, keeping the reaction going.

In a power reactor, a careful balance is maintained to sustain the "chain reaction."  Various systems are available to the operators to slow the reaction down by small fractions of the total output if it starts to increase in power/thermal output above the desired level for any reason, or to stop the reaction entirely. It's always assumed (by the nuclear regulators and the nuclear industry) that one of the several backup systems will work properly, which is an iffy assumption at best. Many of the backup systems have never been tested at full size, let alone in the real world. In one case, shipping bolts were left on for thirty years, rendering the "Emergency Core Cooling System" inoperative that entire time. They checked when a different plant realized THEY had left similar bolts on! This would have caused an "out-of-design-basis" accident, had the cooling system not been available when called upon. The unthinkable -- and uninsurable -- would have happened.

Even the most advanced reactor designs have thousands of potential accident and terrorist / war / natural disaster scenarios which could result in a core meltdown and massive release of radioactive fission products to the surrounding environment. The government refuses to study the actual details -- it's just too horrific and would shut the door on nuclear power generation forever if they were to update the 1982 CRAC-2 report.  That report was so devastating, it was suppressed, denounced, and ignored by the government regulators who had commissioned it, as well as by the entire nuclear industry.  In truth, CRAC-2 didn't go nearly far enough in estimating how bad an accident could be, and also probably underestimated their rate of occurrence. There have been enough close calls (plus Chernobyl in 1986) to assume so. The average reactor is much older now than they were ever expected to become -- 2nd and 3rd 20-year license extensions are granted routinely to any and all types of nuclear power plants, regardless of efficiency.  Yet they are ALL already cracking and leaking.  They are highly irradiated and embrittled.  Catastrophic failures increase in likelihood daily, and many parts can't even be inspected and are not on the blueprints.

Our nuclear infrastructure is ripe for catastrophic failure. And the populations around the plants have grown tremendously.

Normal radioactive decay of uranium (element 92) starts with a sudden, unpredictable release of an alpha particle, which is a very high speed helium atom with no electrons attached. This initial radioactive decay is followed by additional releases of alpha and beta particles, gamma rays, and other energy forms.  Natural radioactive decay of uranium does not involve nuclear fission. The end-product of the various natural decay chains, typically 20 or more steps, is usually lead (element 82).  Not, say, radioactive Strontium-90, which comes almost exclusively from atomic bombs and nuclear power plants, as does Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and many other radioactive isotopes which are produced from fissioning (splitting) larger elements in a nuclear chain reaction.

These lighter elements -- "fission products" -- are themselves radioactive because they invariably have too many neutrons to be stable.  (The "stability curve" of isotopes illustrates this).  Fission products decay by releasing a beta particle (a high-speed electron), sometimes accompanied by, or followed by, a gamma ray or an x-ray energy burst.  Beta particles are negatively charged and are able to damage things they merely pass close to, especially after they've slowed down from their original speed, which is nearly (>99.7%) the speed of light.  At that speed, they pass so fast, they aren't around long enough to do much damage.

It can take a dozen or more radioactive decay steps, and many thousands of years, with each step occurring at some random time (each isotope of every element has an average half-life) before fission products decay into stable elements.

Some fission products are radioactive isotopes of elements that living organisms use as part of their structure.  Living organisms cannot distinguish between stable and unstable atoms of the same element until the moment of decay, when there is an enormous (on an atomic scale) energy release inside the body.  After a radioactive beta decay occurs, the new element, with one more proton, is no longer going to be useful in the molecule it was a part of inside the living system.  For example, after a beta decay, Cesium-137 becomes Barium-137, Strontium-90 becomes Yttrium-90, etc..

As the beta particle is ejected, the rebound of the "new" atom may cause it to be knocked away from its position in a molecule.  Not that it would matter: the atom's charge changes too, increasing by one proton's worth of positive charge, and it's now the wrong element anyway.  If it was part of a DNA molecule, the DNA chain will be broken.  Complex proteins, created with tens of thousands of atoms and hundreds of delicate folds and bends in the structure, are ruined when this happens.  Cancers are sometimes begun.  One beta particle can destroy tens of thousands of molecules as it passes them.

The amount of fission products in so-called "spent" fuel depends on the amount of energy extracted from the fuel:  The more energy released by the fission process, the more fission products there will be.  As soon as the fuel is part of a "critical mass" it becomes very highly irradiated.  The rest of the time spent in the reactor makes it all the more deadly, and all the more difficult to handle, and "hotter" both thermally and radioactively.

Once the reactor fuel rods are removed from the reactor, the fissioning process stops, but the fission products remain.

So using fresh fuel that's stored on-site is a VERY poor excuse to keep ANY reactor operating for even an extra minute, let alone six months!

Besides, Oldbury Unit II is an inefficient old 217 megawatt reactor that should never have opened in the first place. It was commissioned in 1967.

The operators of the reactor do admit to another reason they would like to keep the reactor operating: To help pay for "decommissioning."

Another lousy reason to keep a nuclear power plant operating!

"Decommissioning" funds don't cover final disposal costs of the spent fuel, which will be phenomenally expensive no matter how you slice it, dice it, encase it, decompose it, chemically treat it, glassify it, solidify it, liquify it, purify it, or dilute it -- unless, of course, you release the spent fuel into the oceans, the air, and the soil, which would be a crime against humanity (and which will probably be done, sooner or later).

It will take hundreds of thousands of human generations before the radioactive isotopes will have all decayed to stable elements, but in just a few generations, or even a few decades, the fuel rods will have crumbled to dust from their own destructive forces, moisture, heat, vibration, and other forces. The dust will have flowed into the water table somewhere, and the water will have been diluted with cleaner water and delivered to millions of people.

But nevertheless, they want to produce more nuclear waste at Oldbury.

And the REAL reason they want to keep Oldbury running is to keep the site license operational.  What they're really hoping for is a new, state-funded nuclear reactor or two, to be built at the site. It's the dream of every old nuclear reactor operator in the world. That, and to be loved. They might get the money.

There never will be a safe way to store nuclear waste. I offer as "exhibit A" a pamphlet from more than ten years ago from the United States Department of Energy (DOE), misinforming us that Yucca Mountain, once built, would solve our waste problem after what was then twenty years of "scientific" investigation showing it to be suitable. A decade later, Yucca Mountain is still not suitable, and never will be. It leaks, it shakes, it caves in. It's just not right.

I offer as "exhibit B" the simple logic that anything which produces ionizing radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, x-ray, etc. energy bursts) will, by definition, destroy any container you put that thing in!

England has even fewer options than we in America do for their nuclear waste problem (if less than zero options is possible). No country has a solution, no country ever can -- except perhaps Japan, which seems to have contracted with other countries to take all their nuclear waste for "reprocessing," a procedure which requires transporting the highly carcinogenic waste thousands of miles over the open oceans, treating it physically and chemically, releasing vast quantities of radioactive and otherwise-deadly chemicals into the environment, reusing a small portion of the "quap", and storing the rest of the mess in flimsy containers too close to groundwater supplies SOMEWHERE.

But despite all these problems, an extension for Oldbury was granted.

Ridiculous!

This article appeared in the online magazine media with conscience at http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/8780-oldbury-unit-2.html

Are E-on spying on members of SANE?........Probably!

If E-on was a company of honesty and integrity would they spy on members of SANE?, probably not......but given the latest revelation from the Guardian the answer must be .........probably...........

Please see the article from yesterdays Guardian newspaper.

I can confirm that we have incidents with various mobile phones when a strange interference has been heard , from various places at various times.

We have also had incidents where we have arrived home to find the time clocks on some of our appliances are at the right time and some have the zeroes on a digital clock as though a power cut has occurred.

My only advice following this article is that we keep all communication as private as possible and understand that as members of SANE some companies, such as E-on, may be interested.

Vast sums of money are at stake for them!

It is reassuring that it appears that somebody inside Horizon, E-on is prepared to pass on intimate company secrets as they realise how unlawful their activities are.

• ctivism

Revealed: how energy firms spy on environmental activists

Leaked documents show how three large British companies have been paying private security firm to monitor activists

• • Share1656
  • 
  • 
• Comments (332)

• Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 February 2011 21.00 GMT
• Article history

Protesters at Ratcliffe-on Soar power station, operated by E.ON, which says it has hired security firms to gather information on climate activists. Photograph: Tom Pilston

Three large energy companies have been carrying out covert intelligence-gathering operations on environmental activists, the Guardian can reveal.

The energy giant E.ON, Britain's second-biggest coal producer Scottish Resources Group and Scottish Power, one of the UK's largest electricity-generators, have been paying for the services of a private security firm that has been secretly monitoring activists.

Leaked documents show how the security firm's owner, Rebecca Todd, tipped off company executives about environmentalists' plans after snooping on their emails. She is also shown instructing an agent to attend campaign meetings and coaching him on how to ingratiate himself with activists. The disclosures come as police chiefs, on the defensive over damaging revelations of undercover police officers in theprotest movement, privately claim that there are more corporate spies in protest groups than undercover police officers.

Senior police officers complain that spies hired by commercial firms are – unlike their own agents – barely regulated.

Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which until recently ran the secretive national unit of undercover police officers deployed in protest groups, said in a speech last week that "the deployment by completely uncontrolled and unrestrained players in the private sector" constituted a "massive area of concern".

Revelations about Mark Kennedy and three other undercover police officers in protest groups caused a furore last month and led to four official inquiries into their activities.

Now a Guardian investigation has shed new light on the surveillance of green campaigners by private security firms whose intrusive operations include posing as activists on mailing lists and infiltrating full-time agents into campaign groups over many years.

Multinational companies, ranging from power producers to arms sellers, hire these firms to try to prevent activists running campaigns against them or breaking into their sites.

The leaked documents lay bare the methods of one firm, Vericola, run by 33-year-old Todd. Based in Canterbury, Vericola, according to Todd, is a "business risk management company" offering a "bespoke" service to clients "regarding potential threats" to their businesses.

Over the past three years, Todd, using different email addresses, has signed up to the mailing lists of a series of environ-mental groups organising major demonstrations such as the G20 rallies in London, demonstrations against E.ON's Kingsnorth power station and the expansion of Heathrow airport, giving her access to communications and advanced notice of demonstrations.

Last July, she forwarded details about Climate Camp campaigners to two company directors she called "the usual suspects".

One was Gordon Irving, the security director of Scottish Power since 2001 after spending 30 years in Strathclyde police force. The other was Alan Somerville, then a director of Scottish Resources Group which produces a large amount of Britain's coal.

Todd highlighted a call from campaigners to submit more objections to coal-producing developments which needed planning permission.

Activists say she regularly attended meetings of an environmental group, known as Rising Tide, for around a year in 2007/08.

The documents also show her advising a colleague on how to fit in with the other activists at meetings held to organise future protests. One tip was that he should not mention he was flying to Germany as "obviously" the environmentalists "hate short-haul flights".

Todd, who says she is not a corporate spy, told the Guardian that all the information she acquires comes from public sources such as subscribing to emailing lists through the websites of the environmental groups.

Despite emails revealing how she repeatedly tried to find ways for her agents to access protest gatherings, Todd denied her company "infiltrates" meetings of protest groups as they are open to any member of the public.

The environmental activists are angry that, by posing as a supporter, she has gained access to emails and meetings where tactics and strategies are discussed. Eli Wilton, a Climate Camp organiser, said: "It's frightening that in a meeting about how to stop the fossil fuel industry, the person sitting next to you might be a spy paid for by the energy giants themselves."

He said Todd and her colleagues "couldn't have gotten subscribed without attending our meetings. These were internal lists where, for example, we strategised about how to stop new coal-fired power stations being built by E.ON."

E.ON said it had hired Vericola and another security firm, Global Open, on an "ad hoc" basis as its executives wanted to know when environmentalists were going to demonstrate at or invade its power stations and other premises, as they had done in the past.

The E.ON spokesman said it asked Vericola only for publicly available information and if Todd and her colleagues had obtained private information, they had done so "under their own steam".

SRG and Scottish Power did not comment.

Thanks to the honourable whistleblower at Horizon/E-on ....we are really grateful and appreciate your integrity and authenticity.

Any other information will be gratefully receaived

DECC bring on the CPO's........or its no go Shepperdine!

As a resident of Shepperdine who will not sell my land to Eon/RWE or Horizon I urge DECC to decide the process they wish to use to use to make me sell or to confirm that Shepperdine  is an unsuitable site for new nUKes.

The first reactor has to be open by 2025 to satisfy the criteria laid down in EN6, planning is due in 2014, but as we all know a considerable amount of extra land will be required for landscaping..... Yet this is not in place.

There are 250 hectares of land at Horizon's  Wylfa site, and they are trying to buy more! There is only 150 hectares at Oldbury/Shepperdine for the equivalent size development.

Reg Illingworth says "As Horizon do not own enough land to start the development ,we are urging DECC to remove Oldbury from the designated list.They cannot build the first reactor by 2025 due to the lack of land. To my knowledge no other landowners in Shepperdine want to sell their land to them, we just want them to go away".

Too little............And nuclear at Shepperdine will be too late.........

Horizon don't own enough land to build the site at Shepperdine!

Our campaign group have elicited an admission from Horizon that they do not own enough land to build the site at Shepperdine.

See below an email from Tim Proudler at Horizon Nuclear Power, who plan to build a new massive scale third generation nuclear power station on land at Shepperdine near Oldbury if the government gives the go ahead in the Spring.

Our chairman, Reg Illingworth, suspected they needed a lot more land when he recently visited the Wylfa site and learned that Horizon were trying to buy up more land there. He wrote to Horizon and received the reply below. In this Mr Proudler admits that they "may need more land for use during construction, or for landscaping, ecological or other mitigation measures".

From the words of one of our local anonymous friends who has commented on the Chairman's blog:

"They are going to need a hell of a lot more land to accomodate the necessary landscaping mitigation measures to mitigate the huge visual impact of these cooling towers. Even the so called "smaller" hybrid 70m high towers will need huge banks all around the site planted with trees to screen them. This alone will easily double the site area. This is not a question of they "may" need more land its a absolute dead cert. If you think about hostels for temporary workers accomodation, site storage and parking as well this could end up taking up the entire village of Shepperdine and beyond. Us locals had better standby for the bully boy rackman style evictions."

Why are Horizon saying they 'may' need more land in a way that it makes it sound like a hectare or two. Its obvious to us all that landscaping alone will need a huge area of land. Its just like the cooling tower photomontages they should have revealed a year before they did, hoping we wouldnt notice this before it was too late. Now we find out they will need loads more land but they wont say how much in the hope no one will notice before its too late!

Email received from Tim Proudler at Horizon:

Dear Reg,

Many thanks for your email.

In response to your query on the amount of land required to build the proposed new nuclear power station near Oldbury, I can confirm that the permanent operational plant and buildings we need would be within the 150 hectare site we currently have and which was largely included within the original Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) nomination. This would include the land needed for either possible reactor design and associated cooling towers.

Consistent with the SSA nomination process, we have always said that we may need more land for use during construction, or for landscaping, ecological or other mitigation measures and in fact, this is reiterated in the public scoping report we published in 2009.

It’s not really valid to make a direct comparison between the Wylfa and Oldbury landholdings. Wylfa has a very different geography, geology and topography, and it is not possible to assume an identical situation for both sites in terms of the required development areas. As our studies continue at Oldbury, and we evaluate flood protection, transport options, and construction needs, further land requirements will become clearer.

With regards to your question about access roads, our view, again as outlined in the scoping report, remains unchanged. We believe that the access route to the existing power station will be sufficient for the purposes of construction with some possible minor upgrading (which will need to be clarified when more information on the proposals is known). We propose a new access road connecting to our site from a point just before the entrance into the existing power station.

Our full transport assessment for the project is still on–going and when completed we are committed to sharing the findings with local people ahead of any formal consultation on our proposals. 

I hope that this answers your queries. Please do get in touch if you need further information.

Kind regards,

Tim

 

Tim Proudler

Oldbury Planning and Consents Manager

Horizon Nuclear Power

Reply about additional land requirements at Shepperdine for New -Nuke Development

Latest letter from Tim that states there is a requirement for additional land at the Shepperdine Site.

Dear Reg,

Many thanks for your email.

In response to your query on the amount of land required to build the proposed new nuclear power station near Oldbury, I can confirm that the permanent operational plant and buildings we need would be within the 150 hectare site we currently have and which was largely included within the original Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) nomination. This would include the land needed for either possible reactor design and associated cooling towers.

Consistent with the SSA nomination process, we have always said that we may need more land for use during construction, or for landscaping, ecological or other mitigation measures and in fact, this is reiterated in the public scoping report we published in 2009.

It’s not really valid to make a direct comparison between the Wylfa and Oldbury landholdings. Wylfa has a very different geography, geology and topography, and it is not possible to assume an identical situation for both sites in terms of the required development areas. As our studies continue at Oldbury, and we evaluate flood protection, transport options, and construction needs, further land requirements will become clearer.

With regards to your question about access roads, our view, again as outlined in the scoping report, remains unchanged. We believe that the access route to the existing power station will be sufficient for the purposes of construction with some possible minor upgrading (which will need to be clarified when more information on the proposals is known). We propose a new access road connecting to our site from a point just before the entrance into the existing power station.

Our full transport assessment for the project is still on–going and when completed we are committed to sharing the findings with local people ahead of any formal consultation on our proposals. 

I hope that this answers your queries. Please do get in touch if you need further information.

Kind regards,

Tim

Tim Proudler

Oldbury Planning and Consents Manager

Horizon Nuclear Power

Silence is not golden.....A big shhhhhhhh from Eon

We are still to receive a reply from Tim Proudler, Planning and Consents Manager at Eon's joint venture Horizon Nuclear Power, maybe he is not sure how much land is needed for the development?

Funny that, as the P and C's Manager for the largest ever infrastructure project in Gloucestershire you would have thought he would have an inkling?

But I am a mere mortal and not a planning supremo..........

We are still waiting Tim..........................and,sadly, our blight continues.

Hi Tim

We have not yet had a reply to the question below about the amount of land required at  the Shepperdine Site or Oldbury, as you know it .

We would be grateful for the reply.

Many thanks

Reg

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: reg illingworth
To: eon
Cc: Samantha Stagg
Sent: Thursday, 3 February, 2011 21:50:44
Subject: Horizon Nuclear Power Site at Shepperdine

Hi Tim/Samantha

Can you please confirm:-

What other land needs to be acquired in and around the site at Shepperdine to fully satisfy the development you are proposing to build?

Where would a new access road be situated for the construction traffic?

Looking forward to your answers.

Many thanks

Reg

Wikileaks on Wylfa

SUNDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2011

Wikileaks on Wylfa

Wikileaks has just published via The Telegraph the below confidential cable from the United States' London Embassy about the UK's new nuclear programme. Dated June 2009 it provides a complete summary of the Government's plans at that time and also the likely problems.

Of interest to us on Ynys Môn is the commercial information it provides regarding US reactor company, Westinghouse's negotiations with E.On and RWE's regarding their Wylfa and Oldbury sites (Section 5). It notes how Westinghouse is trying to get the German energy companies to select its Westinghouse AP1000 reactor over the French Areva system, saying that the final decision will not be made until December 2009 (its now February 2011 and I understand this decision has still not been finalised). If Westinghouse is selected it says they will use US largest engineering company Fluor Corp together with a UK company to provide engineering, procurement, and construction services at both Wylfa and Oldbury.

Lots of other interesting stuff, particularly regarding the three workforce challenges facing the UK: an aging workforce where most workers are between 45-54 years old; a skills gap; and the difficulty in attracting enough workers as demand ramps up (see sections 9 & 10).

Read the whole thing below.

Ref ID: 09LONDON1514

Date: 6/30/2009 11:42

Origin: Embassy London

Classification: CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN

Destination: 09LONDON3199

Header: VZCZCXRO2320RR RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSRDE RUEHLO #1514/01 1811142ZNY CCCCC ZZHR 301142Z JUN 09FM AMEMBASSY LONDONTO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2735INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVERHEHNSC/NSC WASHDCRHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DCRUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC

Tags: ENRG,TRGY,SENV,KNNP,UK

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 LONDON 001514 NOFORN SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/01/2019 TAGS: ENRG, TRGY, SENV, KNNP, UK SUBJECT: UK RAMPING UP ON NUCLEAR POWER, BUT CHALLENGES REMAIN REF: LONDON 3199 Classified By: Economic Counselor Kathleen Doherty for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

1.(C/NF) Summary.

HMG is making steady progress in launching its ambitious plan to build eleven new nuclear power plants between 2018-2025. The UK will need to address several challenges, including workforce issues, nuclear waste, planning procedures, reactor design, and site assessment procedures for this effort to be successful. A diverse industry with a mix of corporate players and different nuclear reactor technologies is emerging. Nuclear energy enjoys support from both the Labour and Conservative Parties as a way to reach a targeted 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. HMG and industry, however, will need to collaborate closely for this nuclear new build plan to work. End Summary.

UK TIMELINE FOR NUCLEAR NEW BUILD --------------------------------- Nuclear power currently accounts for only 15 percent of the UK's electricity and HMG wants to double this amount. HMG wants to have the first nuclear site up and running by 2018, with all eleven plants fully operational by 2025. Plans established by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) are currently on schedule. DECC's Office of Nuclear Development (OND) received nominations from industry players for eleven recommended nuclear power sites on March 31, 2009. OND published these sites in a month-long public comment on April 14. OND is now developing a National Policy Statement (NPS) on Nuclear Energy, expected to be completed by autumn 2009. The NPS on Nuclear Energy will then undergo public comment before it is sent for "Parliamentary scrutiny" around March 2010. The final step is for the Nuclear NPS to be passed to the newly created UK Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in March/April 2010. The IPC will then use it as a policy framework as it reviews planning applications for new nuclear power plants. It is still too early to have a 'calendar' for when construction might start on individual power plants. THE BUSINESS PLAYING FIELD --------------------------

3.(C/NF) DECC officials tell us HMG wants a variety of industry players involved in new nuclear build. French-owned company EDF Energy became a major player when it bought out British Energy (BE) in January 2009 for 12.5 billion GBP ($20.5 billion). EDF Energy uses French-owned company Areva's EPR nuclear reactors. Areva is the main competitor of U.S. company Westinghouse, which produces the AP1000 reactor. EDF Energy submitted nominations for five sites, which include Hartlepool, Heysham, Dungeness, Hinkley Point, and Sizewell B. EDF also bought land owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in April at the Bradwell site.

4.(C/NF) Plans currently call for all nuclear new build to be funded completely by the private sector. However, EDF criticized HMG publicly in May for not providing subsidies. MP Jamie Reed (Labour Party) commented to ESTHOff shortly after this public announcement, "EDF should not expect any subsidies from HMG." The new Energy Minister at DECC, Lord Hunt, reinforced this view in a public statement in mid-June. EDF Energy is now retreating from its comments on subsidies and is asking for a "level playing field" of financial incentives comparable to the renewable energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) sectors.

5. (C/NF) German-owned utilities E.On and RWE formed a joint venture and bought land in April owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) at Oldbury and Wylfa. David Powell with Westinghouse told us RWE also owns land at Kirksanton and Braystones, two other nominated sites. While RWE does not have specific plans yet for the land, said Powell, he speculates RWE may partner with E.On to develop these sites. Westinghouse is bidding to partner with RWE and E.On on the Oldbury and Wylfa sites in the near-term to provide the AP1000 reactor, but will not know the outcome until December 2009. Powell added Westinghouse will probably pick U.S. company Fluor and a U.K. company to provide related engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) services as part of the overall contract with E.On and RWE at these two sites. NDA also has unused land at Sellafield, noted Powell, and he suspects the consortium of Iberdola (Spain), GDF Suez (Belgium) and Scottish Energy may buy this property.

6.(C/NF) Westinghouse also operates the Springfield fuel LONDON 00001514 002 OF 003 processing plant in Preston, and supplies the majority of nuclear fuel to nuclear plants in the UK. David Powell told ESTHOff that Westinghouse is negotiating with NDA, DECC, and others to lease additional land owned by NDA to expand its capacity for processing enriched uranium. Westinghouse said there is a deadline of March 31, 2010 to determine whether this new arrangement will work, since the current agreement expires at that time. The Springfield fuel plant currently employs approximately 1500 workers and ships approximately 200 tons of fuel a year to nuclear plants in the UK. The UK Nuclear National Lab (NNL) conducts research and development on uranium fuel on this site. NEW PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT PROCESSES MAY CAUSE DELAYS --------------------------------------------- ---------

7.(C/NF) The timeline for nuclear new build may begin to slip. One key issue is a General Design Assessment (GDA) conducted by the historically understaffed Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Nuclear Installation Inspectorate (NII). While David Powell with Westinghouse expressed concern to us in the past about NII devoting disproportionate resources to reviewing Areva's nuclear reactor design, he told us on June 26 the situation has improved since NII recently increased its staff (and salaries) to meek workload demands. NII is also responsible for issuing nuclear site licenses. Both the GDA and nuclear site licenses are expected to be completed in mid-2011. Given the overlap on the deadline for both procedures, Powell said there is concern NII will not be able to keep up with the dual workload.

8. (C/NF) A major unknown is the new UK Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which was created by the 2008 Planning Act. Planning applications for nuclear new build will need to be submitted to the UK IPC under this new system. IPC is in the process of hiring staff, appointing CEOs and senior commissioners, and will not begin reviewing or advising on planning applications until sometime in March/April 2010. One NDA official and other industry players have confided to ESTHOff this process could be delayed. HMG will provide national policy statements (NPSs) to be used as the policy framework for the Commission's decisions. FUTURE DEMANDS ON THE NUCLEAR WORKFORCE ---------------------------------------

9.(SBU) The nuclear energy sector in the UK faces three workforce challenges: an aging workforce where most workers are between 45-54 years old; a skills gap; and the difficulty in attracting enough workers as demand ramps up. According to the UK Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), 40,000 jobs in the UK are directly attributable to the nuclear energy sector (ref A). The largest employer is the Sellafield site in Cumbria, with 11,000 workers. Demand is strong in the UK for "new blood" in the nuclear work force. Dr. Andrew Sherry of the Dalton Nuclear Institute at the University of Manchester speculated to ESTHOff the number of workers in the nuclear sector in the UK will need to increase by 18,000 over the next 20 years.

10.(SBU) The Nuclear National Skills Academy, established in 2007 as a membership-based organization, has the lead on training efforts in close coordination with UK universities, industry, and government agencies. Secretary of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Ed Miliband recently unveiled a new 20 million GBP ($32.8 million) facility on June 19 -- the Energus Center -- in West Cumbria to provide training near the Sellafield nuclear site. Dr. Sherry also told ESTHOff there is a network of UK educational institutions developing a masters program for nuclear engineering. A collaborative effort between the Dalton Nuclear Institute, Nuclear National Skills Academy, and the UK National Nuclear Lab (NNL) includes providing apprenticeships to university students. DEALING WITH NUCLEAR WASTE --------------------------

11.(C/NF) Safe disposal of nuclear waste is a big challenge. Even NDA officials say publicly this is one of the biggest challenges for the UK. Chief Scientist at the UK National Nuclear Lab (NNL) Graham Fairhill told ESTHOff that HMG is assessing geographic areas in the UK for "deep disposal" of used plutonium and spent fuel. Waste management research is one of the UK NNL's highest priorities. Fairhill told ESTHOff the Copeland/Cumbria region -- where Sellafield is located -- "volunteered" to be one of the UK depositories LONDON 00001514 003 OF 003 for nuclear waste. MP Reed (Labour Party) had a different view, however, when asked by ESTHOff and said his constituency in Copeland/Cumbria is interested in helping HMG "work through" the process of dealing with nuclear waste, but "will not just do it for them." Even Fairhill speculated local government officials in the Copeland/Cumbria region will demand some "financial incentives" from HMG in return for serving as a disposal site for nuclear waste. THE WHITE ELEPHANT: MOX PLANT -----------------------------

12.(C/NF) The Mox Plant, established to process and recycle mixed oxide (mox) fuel at Sellafield, continues to be a "white elephant" for HMG. The Mox Plant is considered one of HMG's most embarrassing failures in British industrial history, costing taxpayers 90 million GBP ($147 million) a year. The plant's complex fuel recycling procedure, coupled with management and equipment problems, have plagued it for years. NDA is under public and parliamentary pressure to make a decision on whether to keep the plant open or close it down. The fact that Areva was brought in to fulfill the commercial contracts that the Mox plant could not fulfill also adds to its political unpopularity. NDA officials told ESTHOff any of the options -- investing in the plant or closing it down -- will be expensive. There are no clear answers for HMG, but in the meantime the plant continues to drain resources and is a black mark for the entire industry at a time when HMG is trying to ramp up its nuclear new build efforts. OTHER SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR NEW BUILD EFFORTS -------------------------------------------

13.(C/NF) HMG is developing a "center for excellence" in nuclear research to support new build and decommissioning efforts. In late March 2009, then Minister of Energy Mike O'Brien announced Serco, Battelle, and the University of Manchester had been chosen to run the UK National Nuclear Lab (NNL). Chief Scientist Graham Fairhill said there are areas for U.S.-UK collaboration, given that U.S.-based Battelle is a partner in this effort. NNL's activities range from researching strategies to deal with nuclear waste, to providing reactor analysis and fuel services, among others. One of NNL's new labs was established to deal with handling plutonium fuel. This facility will be operational in a year. Fairhill added that he envisions partnership opportunities between the UK, U.S., EU, and Japan in using the facility once it is up and running.

Comment -------

14.(C/NF) Nuclear new build enjoys good political support at DECC and more broadly, within HMG, and industry players are satisfied with the support they get from DECC Secretary Miliband and recently appointed Minister of Energy Lord Hunt. However, the ambitious timeline established by DECC does not allow much room for delays. There will need to be a concerted effort within HMG and private industry to make even one nuclear plant operational by 2018. There will also need to be a strong public relations campaign throughout the process to build support in communities where new nuclear plants will be located. Visit London's Classified Website: XXXXXXXXXXXX LeBaron