Today a report slamming the new build plan has been handed into Cumbria County Council, The National Park Authority, Natural England, Friends of the Lake District. The report will also be sent to the leaders of neighbouring European countries.
There is a CONsultation taking place on the AP1000 reactor design – we found out only by accident through social media – and this CONsultation ends on the 30th November (while all attention is focused deliberately on the pylons).
**Please use the information below to write in your own words to the Office for Nuclear Regulation. Urge the Office for Nuclear Regulation to refuse a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and Statement of Design Acceptability (SDA) for the AP1000 reactors.
PLEASE Make a comment in the next 9 days, email: New.Reactor-Build@onr.gov.uk
“BIGGEST NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE” SLAMMED BY NEW EXPERT REPORT
The new report describes the proposed Reactors in Cumbria as being:
- Not fit for purpose
- too great a risk to public health and safety
- high, probability of Containment System failure
- significant releases of radioactivity directly into the environment
- post accident radiation doses to the public could be one hundred to one thousand times higher than those assumed by Westinghouse..
Between the Lakeland Mountains and the Irish Sea lays the delightful village of Beckermet. This small West Lakeland village is holding its breath. Not because of the proposed pylons across Cumbria, but because of what would be at the end of those pylons. Namely “the biggest nuclear development in Europe” just 700 metres from the village school.
A new report by Edinburgh Energy and Environment Consultancy and written by Pete Roche has been commissioned through crowd funding by campaign group Radiation Free Lakeland.
Former US Nuclear Regulator Arnie Gundersen has described the AP1000 reactor design as “Chernobyl on steroids” One problem identified by Gundersen is that during an accident if there were just a small failure in the steel containment vessel of the AP1000 reactor, the radioactive gasses inside the reactor would leak directly into the environment, because the gasses would be sucked out the hole in the top of the AP1000 Shield Building in what is known as the chimney effect.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation’s “interim” approval for the AP1000 contains 51 unresolved “issues.” The new Generic Design Assessment process is being carried out in, what is described as, an ‘open and transparent manner, designed to facilitate the involvement of the public.’ Deadline for making a comment to the UK regulators on the AP1000 as part of the GDA process is 30th November 2016.
The Report Conclusions:
“The AP1000 advanced passive nuclear reactor design has a weaker containment, and fewer back-up safety systems than current reactor designs.
Its so-called advanced passive design make the reactor particularly vulnerable to a very large release of radioactivity following an accident if there were just a small failure in the steel containment vessel, due to the chimney effect.
A thorough review of the AP1000 design in the light of the Japanese accident at Fukushima has shown that the containment is dangerously close to exceeding the maximum post accident pressure that it could withstand. Several ways in which the AP1000 design could lose the ability to cool the reactors in an emergency have been identified, and Fukushima has shown that a containment breach is possible, and that arrangements for keeping the spent fuel ponds cool are inadequate.
The AP1000 reactor design is not fit for purpose and so should be refused a Design Acceptance Confirmation (DAC) and Statement of Design Acceptability (SDA) by the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency.”
Clive Semmens nuclear engineer: “emergency core cooling systems don’t work nearly as well as you might expect”
Martyn Lowe of Close Capenhurst: “It is the difference between a belt and braces approach to safety systems, and what can only be refereed to as a hope and pray approach”
Irene Sanderson of North Cumbria CND: “Moorside has the unique combination of being: Too early – We have yet the problem of nuclear waste disposal and this is nowhere near solved; Too late – It won’t come on-line until after the global warming crisis has been resolved or has become unresolvable; Too new – There are years to go to iron out the problems with containment and other safety aspects; Too old – Nuclear energy is now just a stopgap until it can be replaced by safer renewable sources. Too costly or too cheap – How much should we pay to this company who created Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 3, still out of control and acknowledged as one of the greatest manmade disasters.”
Marianne Birkby of Radiation Free Lakeland: “Beckermet’s 1400 acres of greenfields and River Ehen floodplain near Sellafield should be a buffer zone, not a new nuclear sacrifice zone with untried untested reactors, this report exposes a special kind of insanity and it is called Moorside.”
FULL REPORT :ap1000-report
ARTICLE in THE ECOLOGIST: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988356/ap1000_reactor_design_is_dangerous_and_not_fit_for_purpose.html
Stop Moorside Petition