Experts warn Oireachtas Committee about concerns over UK’s plans to expand nuclear program

admin Press Releases

Irish and International experts warn Oireachtas Committee about serious deficiencies in the UK’s assessment of plans to expand its nuclear power program and the potential impact on Ireland.

Speaking in front of the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government this afternoon (12PM), Professors John Sweeney and Stephen Thomas outlined serious flaws in the UK’s risk assessment and design for Hinkley Point C.

Hinkley Point C is one of eight new nuclear power plants proposed as part of the UK’s expansion of its nuclear programme, five of which are planned for the west coast of the UK facing Ireland. The multi-billion euro Hinkley project is set to be located less than 250km from Rosslare.

Attracta Uí Bhroin, Facilitator of the Environmental Law Implementation Group at the Irish Environmental Network also highlighted the lack of proactive engagement from the Irish State to secure consultation rights for the Irish citizens on these issues.

Radioactive Emissions and Waste

Climatologist and Emeritus Professor of Geography at Maynooth University, John Sweeney, set out serious issues concerning the UK’s initial submission on radioactive emissions and waste to the EU body regulating the nuclear industry in Europe. [1]

Despite the UK’s acknowledgment that Ireland was the nearest country to the plant, we were entirely omitted from the consideration of the severe accident scenario examined in the UK’s submission, Prof Sweeney said.

He warned that “several serious issues” concerning potential transboundary impacts on Ireland were “inadequately considered” in the UK’s assessment and “give cause for concern”.

He pointed to the “insufficient” use of only three years of wind data to model the wind climate as “highly suspect”, especially as the World Meteorological Organisation recommends that climate averages are computed over a 30 year period of consecutive records. [2]

He said that he was also concerned with the UK’s determination of extreme high water levels at the Hinkley site, which he said “fail to take account of climate change” and projected sea level rise. [3]

He said that the UK’s estimates that the difference between the annual return period and the once in 10,000 years return period for high water is 1.3m was of “unsound nature” and “cannot be considered credible”.

He added: “The UK’s principal tide gauge is located relatively close by [to Hinkley] at Newlyn in Cornwall where sea level rise is presently occurring at 3.8mm/year. Also, the IPCC report is virtually certain that global sea level rise will continue for many centuries, with ultimate rises of up to 3m possible.” [4]

The UK’s submission also omits information on a known flood risk at Hinkley from 2010 onwards, and becoming high by the 2080s, he added.  This information has been available to the UK government for years as highlighted by documents released to the UK media under a Freedom of Information request in 2012, he said. [5][6]

Concerns with the Hinkley Project Infrastructure

Professor Stephen Thomas highlighted serious project issues including technical design and manufacturing issues, spiralling costs and delays.

The Hinkley plant is set to have two European Pressurised Water Reactors (EPRs), a technology that Prof Thomas says is “suspect” and has an “unproven design”.

“No EPR is in service, completion of all four under construction globally is significantly delayed and costs have overrun,” he said, pointing to Flamanville on the north coast of France that is now seven years late and more than three times over budget.

The reactor design at Flamanville’s is the same as the one set to be used at Hinkley Point C, with both projects run by the French state-owned firm EDF Energy. [7]

Prof Thomas added that the reputation of both Flamanville and Hinkley’s supplier “is in tatters” after it emerged in 2015 that parts of the safety-critical reactor vessel supplied to Flamanville did not meet specification, he said. [8]

The French nuclear safety regulator, ASN, ordered the company to review its quality control procedures and “it has emerged that quality control documentation had been falsified at Creusot for up to 40 years” he added. [9]

In April 2018, EDF Energy also announced that up to 150 welds in key parts of Flamanville did not meet the required specification. [10]

Prof Thomas added: “This has created major concerns about parts manufactured there for nuclear plants in France and elsewhere.”

Lack of Public Consultation

Ms Au Bhroin outlined how the Irish public are only now being consulted on the project some five years after permission was granted to the plant because of intense legal arguments brought by Irish environmental NGOs. [11]

Ms Au Bhroin said that the experts concerns are “not about panicking people or causing unnecessary concern” but about “ensuring the legal rights of the Irish public are upheld”. [12]

“It is about ensuring we engage proactively and collectively to do all that is necessary to ensure the health of our citizens, our environment, and our economic interests are best protected,” she said.

She outlined the potential impact to Ireland, pointing to a 2016 ESRI report that estimated economic losses of €4 billion in a scenario where there’s a nuclear incident but no radioactive contamination.  [13]

She added that the report “conservatively” estimates a “discounted economic loss to Ireland” of €161 Billion from a serious nuclear event anywhere in North West Europe close to Ireland. In this scenario, the report refers to agriculture as being “lost”.

“This is of course not just a major economic consideration – but one which would impact the very fabric of rural society in Ireland, even if the worst effects on the human population can somehow be avoided,” she warned.

ENDS

[1]The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) was established by treaty in 1957. Article 37 of the EURATOM Treaty stipulates that: “Each Member State shall provide the Commission with such General Data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form as will make it possible to determine whether the implementation of such plan is liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.[2] Environmental Pillar. 17 April 2018. Submission to the Transboundary environmental public consultation re: Hinkley Point C, UK, Nuclear Power Plant: https://goo.gl/2HTvUM [3] Ibid[4] Ibid[5] The Guardian. 7 March 2012. UK nuclear sites at risk of flooding, report shows: https://goo.gl/gLT5MX [6]Nuclear Sites Flood Risk Table: https://www.scribd.com/document/84289220/Nuclear-sites [7] EDF Energy: https://goo.gl/U2QFkz [8] ASN. Manufacturing quality at Creusot Forge: https://goo.gl/3HhcdT [9] Reuters. Audit showed quality issues at Areva’s Creusot foundry: https://goo.gl/YRTWge [10] EDF. 10 April 2018: http://hugin.info/143450/R/2182962/843109.pdf [11] Environmental Pillar. 17 April 2018. Submission to the Transboundary environmental public consultation re: Hinkley Point C, UK, Nuclear Power Plant: https://goo.gl/2HTvUM [12]The Espoo Convention sets out the obligations of Parties to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that is likely to have a likely significant environmental impact across boundaries. The Implementation Committee of the Espoo Convention recently found the UK in breach of its consultation obligations under the convention. [13]Economic and Social Research Institute. 2016. The Potential Economic Impact of a Nuclear Accident – An Irish Case Study: https://www.esri.ie/pubs/BKMNEXT313.pdf

Editor’s Notes

Professor Stephen Thomas is Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich. He worked as an energy policy researcher, specialising in nuclear power economics and policy since 1979, until 2000 at the University of Sussex and then till his retirement in 2015 at the University of Greenwich.

Professor John Sweeney is a Founder and past Director of the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Unit (ICARUS), National University of Ireland Maynooth, NUIM. He has 35 years teaching and research experience in climatology, climate change and atmospheric pollution at NUIM, and was a Contributing Author to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 4th Assessment Report.

Attracta Au Bhroin works with the Irish Environmental Network, a network of environmental non-government organisations and is the facilitator for the Environmental Law Implementation Group – a joint initiative with the Irish Government, whose objectives are to support the proper transposition and implementation of environmental law, including the further development of eNGOs’ capacity to leverage the law to support their missions. 

The Environmental Pillar is a coalition of national environmental organisations and works to promote the protection and enhancement of the environment, together with the creation of a viable economy and a just society, without compromising the viability of the planet on which we live for current and future generations of all species and ecosystems.

adminExperts warn Oireachtas Committee about concerns over UK’s plans to expand nuclear program