Tag Archives: nuclear

Hinkley C hovers on the brink – Europe’s nuclear giants face meltdown Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia – while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6GW European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe – was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs escalate. And escalate …

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland, and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate.

Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous”.

Cold feet in the Treasury as liabilities are set to soar

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20%.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home – something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations – one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7% of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent – including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it – or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its ageing nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20% of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

£37 billion subsidy package approved by EU – but is it legal?

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26% in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies – from the US, China, Japan and Russia – keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet.

 

 

Paul Brown, a former environment correspondent for the Guardian, now writes for Climate News Network. He began working as a reporter on a weekly paper in Sussex and progressed to evening and morning newspapers before joining The Guardian in 1981. In his role as environment correspondent, he travelled to more than 50 countries, and to the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This article was first published by Climate News Network.

 

 




387317

Hinkley C hovers on the brink – Europe’s nuclear giants face meltdown Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia – while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6GW European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe – was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs escalate. And escalate …

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland, and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate.

Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous”.

Cold feet in the Treasury as liabilities are set to soar

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20%.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home – something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations – one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7% of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent – including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it – or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its ageing nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20% of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

£37 billion subsidy package approved by EU – but is it legal?

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26% in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies – from the US, China, Japan and Russia – keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet.

 

 

Paul Brown, a former environment correspondent for the Guardian, now writes for Climate News Network. He began working as a reporter on a weekly paper in Sussex and progressed to evening and morning newspapers before joining The Guardian in 1981. In his role as environment correspondent, he travelled to more than 50 countries, and to the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This article was first published by Climate News Network.

 

 




387317

Hinkley C hovers on the brink – Europe’s nuclear giants face meltdown Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia – while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6GW European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe – was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs escalate. And escalate …

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland, and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate.

Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous”.

Cold feet in the Treasury as liabilities are set to soar

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20%.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home – something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations – one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7% of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent – including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it – or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its ageing nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20% of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

£37 billion subsidy package approved by EU – but is it legal?

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26% in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies – from the US, China, Japan and Russia – keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet.

 

 

Paul Brown, a former environment correspondent for the Guardian, now writes for Climate News Network. He began working as a reporter on a weekly paper in Sussex and progressed to evening and morning newspapers before joining The Guardian in 1981. In his role as environment correspondent, he travelled to more than 50 countries, and to the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This article was first published by Climate News Network.

 

 




387317

Hinkley C hit by surprise treble whammy – is it all over for EDF? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




I am beginning to feel a bit like the Kremlinologists of old, who used to try to work out what was really going on in the heart of the massive Soviet empire – the Kremlin – from the crumbs of news or gnomic statements that emerged from the edifice.

Except the focus is (as the Financial Times christened it) the biggest and most controversial infrastructure project in Europe, Hinkley Point C nuclear power project.

Given UK consumers are on the hook for an undiscounted £37billion of subsidy to this project, you’d think democratic principles would require that all developments were subject to full public scrutiny.

But no – it’s all happening behind closed doors and we have to do the Kremlinology thing. 

A few new scraps of information have emerged that do suggest the project is far from going swimmingly. There are three main points.

The EPR – a turkey that may never fly

First, the reactor design, the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR) isn’t very good. A nuclear engineer now affiliated to University of Cambridge recently described it as “unconstructable“.

Further understanding of the weakness of the EPR design come from the actual experience of trying to build it. The French project in Flamanville has announced further delays and will now take a decade to build instead of the original timetable of five years.

The other EPR under construction in Europe is in Finland at Olkiluoto. Construction started in 2005 was originally scheduled complete in 2009, but earlier this Autumn it was announced it will now be almost a decade late in 2018, if there are no more delays. It’s not easy building an EPR.

Secondly, the other observation the Cambridge engineer had was that the Chinese – who are experimenting with building several models of reactor – appear to have rejected it for their future nuclear programme.

This is a little hard to square with what the Chinese view of the Hinkley project is, because the Chinese state-backed companies China General Nuclear and China National Nuclear Corporation reportedly want a greater share of the supply chain contracts.

Presumably because they anticipate the skills that would be developed would be transferrable to other nuclear designs / engineering, but if anyone can shed any light on this thinking I’d be glad to know.

The Chinese are playing sufficiently hard-ball that an industry source has told The Times “We are desperate. The Chinese are not going to invest in Hinkley Point unless they get a supply chain.”

However a key justification (presumably) for the French Government in standing behind the companies EDF and Areva who are developing and deploying the EPR is getting some employment in the French nuclear sector. They cannot be happy about the Chinese wanting to pinch some of those jobs as part of the funding negotiations.

So in turn this means that EDF are turning to other potential investors such as Saudi Arabian state-controlled Saudi Electric. Presumably having other investors and reducing the Chinese stake means more leverage in the negotiations about where those valuable supply chain jobs land.

Jobs – yes, but don’t expect them to be in the UK!

This leads to a couple of conclusions. One is that if you’re based in UK looking for some high value contracts from the Hinkley project, don’t bet the farm on getting any – the destination of those jobs will be stitched up alongside the funding arrangements, with the UK likely to lose out.

The other conclusion is around engineering standards. Questions have already been raised about the how an independent regulator would police standards with Chinese company involvement.

With the Chinese companies clearly wanting supply chain manufacturing jobs, that issue becomes more than a notional one. The challenge to the UK regulator, the Office of Nuclear Regulation, when some of the problems at Olkiluoto emerged from the production of components, is obvious. 

Thirdly, a minor investor but a significant player in the Hinkley project (10% of funding) are Areva, the reactor vendor. They are in considerable financial trouble and still face the possibility of their shares being downgraded to junk bond status by ratings agency Standard and Poor.

So the prospect of them finding around £2.4bn to fund their 10% of the project – in order to show off a design that clearly isn’t that good – has to remain in doubt, even though the French state is standing behind them.

In fact it turns out that without telling anyone, the UK government has been quietly questioning whether Hinkley will go ahead after all, or worrying if it does go ahead that it might be years late (that Kremlinology thing again).

EDF: ‘Hinkley C  will be completed on time – because I say so’

The only thing that guarantees a prompt arrival for an (allegedly) critical piece of UK energy according to The Times is “Vincent de Rivaz, EDF chief executive, providing his word that it will be on time”.

This is the same bloke who promised that Hinkley would be cooking Christmas turkeys in 2017, when now even under best case it will barely be started by then. You’d have thought the UK government would want a guarantee with slightly more teeth, but apparently not.

And in case anyone is thinking that other models of reactor might be a lot better, the first AP1000 being built in USA appears to be coming in at a cost of $6,360/kW, compared to Hinkley’s $7,600/kW, which is obviously less.

Except that notably price comparisons (although difficult) tend to show most forms of power are significantly cheaper to deliver in US than in UK, so there is good reason to think those AP1000 prices would be significantly higher this side of the Atlantic.

For all the trumpeting of a nuclear renaissance, Hinkley still looks to be as distant and expensive as ever.

 

 

 

Doug Parr is Scientific Director at Greenpeace UK.

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energy Desk blog.

 




387056

Mystery drones are buzzing around French nuclear plants – should we be worried? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Mysterious, seemingly coordinated, drones have appeared in the past month over a number of nuclear power stations in France. We don’t know what these flights are for or who is behind them.

But perhaps the most crucial question they raise is whether this now widespread technology poses a threat to nuclear facilities.

Drone flights were first reported over at least 13 nuclear facilities in October.

The flights have taken place mostly at night, involving drones of different sizes and capability, from smaller models that would need to be operated within the immediate vicinity to larger ones around two meters in size, which could be controlled from kilometres away.

Flights have been carried out both in isolation and concurrently, with drones flown simultaneously over nuclear facilities hundreds of miles apart.

Violating 2.5km ‘no fly’ zones with impunity

It is difficult to assess the risk posed by the recent drone flights as at this point it is unclear who is behind them and crucially what their intentions and capabilities are.

The fights are in breach of the 2.5km no-fly zones, which protect the air space around French nuclear power plants. However, nuclear operator EDF has been quick to down-play the potential threat noting, “these objects are not capable of damaging anything if they fall, nor is any object they might drop.”

Since the 1980s, French nuclear regulation has considered the risk of light aircraft crash, dictating that certain nuclear power plants had to be able to withstand a collision by an aircraft of 5.7 tonnes (the size of a small private jet).

Following 9/11 the French authorities will undoubtedly have revisited the issue. However drones themselves are relatively light and slow: a nuclear plant should easily brush off the impact of a crash.

More worryingly, drones could be used to carry explosives for detonation close to the reactor or other sensitive parts of a nuclear site, although there have been no reports to date that these drones have been carrying a malicious cargo.

Is the camera more dangerous than the gun?

Although this may seem alarming, the use of explosives to cause a radiological release or disruptive plant operations will have been assessed by nuclear operators when designing onsite security systems.

A typical reactor design includes a high strength steel pressure vessel at least a foot thick to contain the reaction and a concrete containment structure several feet thick. While this is mostly in place for safety reasons, it also brings benefits in terms of security.

That said this specific attack route – involving drones as a delivery vehicle – may not have been considered as the wide availability of this technology is a recent phenomenon.

If so France and other countries will no doubt be in the process of updating their Design Basis Threat, a restricted document that outlines the capabilities and intentions of potential adversaries and serves as a guide against which physical protection systems are designed and evaluated.

Drones could also have other malicious uses. When mounted with small cameras, they could be used to conduct reconnaissance or to test security provisions before carrying out a follow-up attack by other means.

Or they could be potentially used to drop equipment onsite to help out a malicious insider. A recent case in Belgium involving the sabotage of non-nuclear systems of a power station by an employee highlights that insiders can pose a real threat.

Greenpeace: ‘it wasn’t us!’

The malicious use of drones – although unlikely – is certainly a threat worthy of consideration. However, the actors and intentions behind the French cases still remains a mystery.

A group of three model aeroplane enthusiasts were arrested and questioned by French authorities in early November. They were allegedly about to launch a basic drone (costing around €100) in the vicinity of a power plant.

However, following their arrest the mysterious flights have continued, with reports suggesting those arrested were either copycats or just pursuing their hobby in an unfortunate location.

More likely than a malicious group being behind the flights is that they are the work of anti-nuclear pressure groups. There have been a number of incidents in recent years involving protesters breaking in to nuclear facilities to highlight inadequate security and nuclear ‘risks’.

These include a break in by more than 60 people earlier this year at a facility in France, a break in at a Swiss plant in March, and three break ins to Swedish nuclear plants over two years up to 2012.

A bumpy ride.

In 2012 a Greenpeace activist flew into the secure area surrounding a French reactor using a motorised paraglider. But a spokesperson for Greenpeace – which has denied any connection to the recent drone flights – stated at the time that “we wanted to illustrate an external danger, like a fall of an aeroplane” onto nuclear facilities.

Perhaps the use of drones represents the work of another group of activists seeking to highlight the risk that readily available drone-technology could pose to nuclear facilities.

Huge costs could be inflicted by forced shutdowns

The drone flights, as with other breaches of security involving terrorists, spies or protesters, can have important implications for the nuclear industry.

While a radiation release caused by a malicious act at a nuclear facility is unlikely, incursions and other breaches of security can impact in other ways. Events leading to outage or plant shutdown can be hugely costly.

The sabotage at the Belgian power plant, for example, along with the unrelated shutdown of two other reactors is costing the operator €40m a month.

More broadly, the reputation of operators, regulators and the whole industry is at stake when security weaknesses are highlighted.

It is for this reason that – whoever is behind the mysterious flights – it is in the interests of the nuclear industry and the French authorities to get to the bottom of the issue as soon as possible.

 

 

Christopher Hobbs is Co-Director, Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS) at King’s College London. He receives funding from the UK and US Governments.

Daniel Salisbury is a PhD Student and Research Assistant at King’s College London. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




387036

UN Resolution warns nuclear WMD states: end is nigh for DU munitions Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On October 31, a new United Nations General Assembly First Committee resolution on depleted uranium (DU) weapons passed overwhelmingly. There were 143 states in favor, four against, and 26 abstentions.

The measure calls for UN member states to provide assistance to countries contaminated by the weapons. The resolution also notes the need for health and environmental research on depleted uranium weapons in conflict situations.

This fifth UN resolution on the subject was fiercely opposed by four depleted uranium-shooting countries – Britain, the United States, France and Israel – who cast the only votes in opposition. The 26 states that abstained reportedly sought to avoid souring lucrative trade relationships with the four major shooters.

A hideously long-term environmental toxin

Uranium-238 – so-called ‘depleted’ uranium – is waste material left in huge quantities by the nuclear weapons and nuclear power complex. It’s used in large caliber armor-piercing munitions and in armor plate on tanks.

Toxic, radioactive dust and debris is dispersed when DU shells burn through targets, and its metallic fumes and dust poison water, soil and the food chain.

DU has been linked to deadly health effects like Gulf War Syndrome among US and allied troops, and birth abnormalities among populations in bombed areas. DU waste has caused radioactive contamination of large parts of Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and perhaps Afghanistan.

The measure explains that DU weapons are made of a “chemically and radiologically toxic heavy metal” [uranium-238], that after use “penetrator fragments, and jackets or casings can be found lying on the surface or buried at varying depth, leading to the potential contamination of air, soil, water and vegetation from depleted uranium residue.”

The subtext: the Pentagon’s refusal to disclose

The main thrust of the latest UN resolution “Encourages Member States in a position to do so to provide assistance to States affected by the use of arms and ammunition containing depleted uranium, in particular in identifying and managing contaminated sites and material.”

The request is a veiled reference to the fact that investigators have been stymied in their study of uranium contamination in Iraq, because the Pentagon refuses to disclose maps of all the places it attacked with DU.

In the diplomatic confines of UN resolutions, individual countries are not named. Yet the world knows that up to 700 tons of DU munitions were blasted into Iraq and Kuwait by US forces in 1991, and that US warplanes fired another three tons into Bosnia in 1994 and 1995; ten tons into Kosovo in 1999; and approximately 170 tons into Iraq again in 2003.

The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, based in Manchester, England and representing over 160 civil society organizations worldwide, played a major part in seeing all five resolutions through the UN process and is working for a convention that would see the munitions outlawed.

In October, ICBUW reported that the US military will again use DU weapons in Iraq in its assaults against ISIS “if it needs to“. The admission came in spite of Iraq’s summer 2014 recent call for a global ban on the weapons and assistance in clearing up the contamination left from bombardments in 1991 and 2003.

Not just 238U – but plutonium, neptunium, americium

The new resolution relies heavily on the UN Environment Program (UNEP) which conducted radiation surveys of NATO bombing targets in the Balkans and Kosovo. It was a UNEP study in 2001 that forced the Pentagon to admit that its DU is spiked with plutonium:

“But now the Pentagon says shells used in the 1999 Kosovo conflict were tainted with traces of plutonium, neptunium and americium – byproducts of nuclear reactors that are much more radioactive than depleted uranium.” (Associated Press, Capital Times, Feb. 3, 2001)

The resolution’s significant fourth paragraph notes in part: ” …  major scientific uncertainties persisted regarding the long-term environmental impacts of depleted uranium, particularly with respect to long-term groundwater contamination.

“Because of these scientific uncertainties, UNEP called for a precautionary approach to the use of depleted uranium, and recommended that action be taken to clean up and decontaminate the polluted sites. It also called for awareness-raising among local populations and future monitoring.”

The ‘precautionary principle’ holds that risky activities or substances should be shunned and discouraged unless they can be proved safe. Of course, instead of adopting precaution, the Pentagon denies that DU can be linked to health problems.

 

 

 

John LaForge works for Nukewatch and lives on the Plowshares Land Trust near Luck, Wisconsin.

This article was originally published on CounterPunch.

 




386596

Leaked Sellafield photos reveal ‘massive radioactive release’ threat Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Ecologist has received a shocking set of leaked images showing decrepit and grossly inadequate storage facilities for high level nuclear waste at the Sellafield nuclear plant.

The images (right), from an anonymous source, show the state of spent nuclear fuel storage ponds that were commissioned in 1952, and used until the mid-1970’s as short term storage for spent fuel until it could be re-processed, producing plutonium for military use. However they were completely abandoned in the mid-1970s and have been left derelict for almost 40 years.

The photographs show cracked concrete tanks holding water contaminated with high levels of radiation, seagulls bathing on the water, broken equipment, a dangerous mess of discarded items on elevated walkways, and weeds growing around the tanks.

The fuel storage ponds, the largest measuring 20m wide, 150m long and 6m deep, are now completely packed with spent fuel in disastrously poor condition.

If the ponds drain, the spent fuel may spontaneously ignite

The ponds are now undergoing decommissioning in order to restore them to safe condition. But the process is fraught with danger – and nuclear expert John Large warns that massive and uncontrolled radioactive releases to the environment could occur.

“This pond is build above ground”, he said. “It’s like an concrete dock full of water. But the concrete is in dreadful condition, degraded and fractured, and if the ponds drain, the Magnox fuel will ignite and that would lead to a massive release of radioactive material.

“Looking at the photos I am very disturbed at the degraded and run down condition of the structures and support services. In my opinion there is a significant risk that the system could fail.”

“If you got a breach of the wall by accident or by terrorist attack, the Magnox fuel would burn. I would say there’s many hundreds of tonnes in there. It could give rise to a very big radioactive release. It’s not for me to make comparisons with Chernobyl or Fukushima, but it could certainly cause serious contamination over a wide area and for a very long time.”

State of fuel is ‘very unstable’

The ponds were abandoned after they were overwhelmed with spent fuel in 1974. This was the time of Prime Minster Edward Heath’s ‘three-day week’ when coal miners were on strike, causing fuel shortages in Britain’s power stations.

In order the ‘keep the lights on’, the UK’s fleet of nuclear power stations were run at full tilt, producing high volumes of spent fuel that the Sellafield re-processing facilities were unable to keep up with.

“During the three-day week they powered up the Magnox reactors to maximum, and so much fuel was coming into Sellafield that it overwhelmed the line, and stayed in the pool too long”, says Large.

“The magesium fuel rod coverings corroded due to the acidity in the ponds, and began to degrade and expose the nuclear fuel itself to the water, so they just lost control of the reprocessing line at a time when the ponds were crammed with intensely radioactive nuclear fuel.”

“This left the fuel in a very unstable condition, with actual nuclear fuel complete with uranium 238, 235 and all the fission products, in contact with water. The problem then is that you get corrosion with the formation of hydride salts which leads to swelling, outside cracks, and metal-air reactions”, said Large – who gave evidence on the topic to the House of Commons Environment Comittee in 1986.

The whole fuel ponds began to look like milk of magnesia, and what with the poor inventories that had been kept, no one even knew what was in there any more. Even the Euratom nuclear proliferation inspectors complained about it as there was by some estimates over a tonne of plutonium sitting there in the fuel rods and as sludge that was never properly accounded for.”

All part of Britain’s nuclear WMD programme

The two adjacent fuel storage ponds, which lie between the old Windscale nuclear piles, were part of the military plutonium production line using the Windscale spent fuel until the Windscale diasaster in 1957.

With the Windscale piles out of commission, they were then adapted to receive nuclear waste from civilian power stations such as Calder Hall and Hinkley Point.

The first pond in the plutonium production line is B30, which is open to the elements. From there underwater tunnels were used to convey the fuel-bearing skips to other ponds and silos within the adjacent building, where the fuel rods were ‘decanned’ from their cladding.

The fuel was then dissolved in concentrated acids in the B203 reprocessing plant, where the plutonium for Britain’s nuclear weapons programme was chemically separated using the PUREX process. Both ponds contain a mix of fuel, sludge, and other miscellaneous nuclear wastes.

Concrete is riddled with cracks

But in the 40 years since the ponds were abandoned, the entire system has broken down. Locks, gantries, lifts and valves are all broken, missing or seized up.

The concrete is riddled with cracks – including not just the ones that you can see, but also those out of sight in the connecting tunnels. The entire environment is far too radioactive for anyone to be able to enter.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has now started work on the ponds, but reassuring statements have been shown to be over-optimistic. “It’s very disturbing”, says Large. “They have been saying it was all under control, and they thought well cleared out. Now we know it’s not.”

However an important first stage has been completed – the ‘de-flocculation’ of the water so that it’s finally possible to see what’s there. This had previously been impossible due to particulate suspension and algal growth.

“For the first time in decades we can see down into the pond and see the contents, and it’s breathtaking!” comments Large. “It’s all thanks to the whistle blower that I’m looking at them. If the Euratom inspectors could see what we can see now, my there would have been a row! Maybe we should invite them back right now!”

A particlar problem arises from the sludge that has accummulated at the bottom of both ponds and skips, which requires especially careful handling. The sludge has to be kept under water in order to prevent its spontaneous ignition.

But it’s also essential to keep it undisturbed as if the sludges are resuspended into the main body of water, a part of the sludge will add into the surface ‘oil’ of fine particulates which can be released to the atmosphere with any surface water disturbance – giving rise to high radiation levels above the water.

This seriously complicates both the removal and packaging of the sludge itself, and of the fuel-containing skips.

Office of Nuclear Regulation response

Several days prior to publication The Ecologist contacted the Office of Nuclear Regulation, the statutory nuclear safety regulator, with pressing questions about the safety of the site, safety plans in the event of water loss or radioactive release, and whether anyone will be prosecuted over the abandonment of the ponds in this highly dangerous condition.

We have now received their replies:

ONR: “Sellafield is ONR’s highest regulatory priority and receives a significantly enhanced level of regulatory attention. It is also a recognised national priority to reduce the hazard and risk at Sellafield in a safe and timely manner.

“We are focusing significant regulatory attention on retrieval of legacy material from the legacy ponds as we recognise the high hazard and risk that these facilities present.”

TE: Are you satisfied that these nuclear installation are safe and ‘fit for purpose’?

ONR: “The legacy facilities at Sellafield were built in the 1950s and 1960s and therefore don’t meet modern engineering standards. Additionally, the legacy facilities were not designed with retrievals of material or decommissioning in mind.

“This does not mean that operations and activities on these facilities are unsafe, but it highlights the need for Sellafield Ltd to retrieve the legacy material in a safe manner as quickly as reasonably possible.

“Our new regulatory approach is aimed at encouraging and facilitating this objective.  We are working collaboratively with other key stakeholders to focus priorities and help drive improvements at Sellafield.

“The new strategy and collaborative working approach is having a positive impact on hazard and risk reduction, particularly in relation to the Pile Fuel Storage Pond where we have enabled the acceleration of removal of legacy canned fuel by four months. We expect this approach to enable Sellafield Ltd to retrieve further legacy material from these facilities ahead of schedule.”

TE: Given that the operator essentially abandoned these ponds around 1974, is any person (real or corporate) to be prosecuted?

ONR: “ONR is not considering enforcement action in relation to the complex historical chain of events leading to the current situation at Sellafield but instead is focusing, together with other key stakeholders, on accelerating the reduction of hazard and risk on site, and how we can do that quickly and safely.

“The ONR’s top priority is ensuring that Sellafield Ltd maintains or improves upon its delivery programme for the remediation and decommissioning of the legacy facilities so that materials are removed  as quickly and safely as possible”

TE: Do these ponds satisfy Safety Assessment Principles for new nuclear plant?

ONR: “The legacy ponds at Sellafield are old and as a result, do not meet the high engineering standards that would be required for modern nuclear facilities. These legacy ponds bring significant challenge, but we must focus our attention on improving the current situation.

“This does not mean that operations and activities on those facilities are unsafe, and ONR has in place a robust inspection regime to ensure that the licensee is doing all that is reasonably practicable to ensure that operations continue to remain safe.” 

TE: Has ONR put in place any special measures under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2000?

ONR: “The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001, (REPPIR) require operators to assess the hazards on site and submit a report of this assessment to ONR.  As the operator, Sellafield Ltd are required to do this.

“This information, along with any additional information ONR may request, is used to determine the need for, and the extent of, the area requiring the local authority to produce an off-site emergency plan to protect the public in the unlikely event of a radiation emergency.”

TE: Has the operator given ONR a hazard report relating to B29 and B30?

ONR: “ONR is fully aware of the hazard and risk associated with all facilities at the Sellafield site, and has an on-going programme of inspections.  These ensure that Sellafield Ltd is complying with its statutory obligations to protect the public and workers from the hazards on  the site.

TE: Have risks associated with these buildings been incorporated into ONR report and placed in the public domain?

ONR: “ONR aims to be open and transparent in publishing our regulatory findings, and we routinely publish our regulatory decisions through project assessment reports and intervention records written by inspectors following site inspections.

“We also produce a quarterly report for the West Cumbria Site Stakeholder Group, which summarises our regulatory activity at Sellafield. There may be instances where it is not appropriate for us to publish certain reports, primarily as they may contain sensitive security information.”

TE: Does Cumbria’s offsite emergency plan address the risks posed by B29 and B30?

ONR: “Under REPPIR, Sellafield Ltd are required to assess the hazards on site and submit a report of this assessment to ONR. This covers the whole site.”

TE: It is reported that the ponds are leaking. Can you confirm this, and can you reveal where any leakage is going?

ONR: “ONR is not aware of any leaks from the ponds.”

 

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




385924

Leaked Sellafield photos reveal ‘massive radioactive release’ threat Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Ecologist has received a shocking set of leaked images showing decrepit and grossly inadequate storage facilities for high level nuclear waste at the Sellafield nuclear plant.

The images (right), from an anonymous source, show the state of spent nuclear fuel storage ponds that were commissioned in 1952, and used until the mid-1970’s as short term storage for spent fuel until it could be re-processed, producing plutonium for military use. However they were completely abandoned in the mid-1970s and have been left derelict for almost 40 years.

The photographs show cracked concrete tanks holding water contaminated with high levels of radiation, seagulls bathing on the water, broken equipment, a dangerous mess of discarded items on elevated walkways, and weeds growing around the tanks.

The fuel storage ponds, the largest measuring 20m wide, 150m long and 6m deep, are now completely packed with spent fuel in disastrously poor condition.

If the ponds drain, the spent fuel may spontaneously ignite

The ponds are now undergoing decommissioning in order to restore them to safe condition. But the process is fraught with danger – and nuclear expert John Large warns that massive and uncontrolled radioactive releases to the environment could occur.

“This pond is build above ground”, he said. “It’s like an concrete dock full of water. But the concrete is in dreadful condition, degraded and fractured, and if the ponds drain, the Magnox fuel will ignite and that would lead to a massive release of radioactive material.

“Looking at the photos I am very disturbed at the degraded and run down condition of the structures and support services. In my opinion there is a significant risk that the system could fail.”

“If you got a breach of the wall by accident or by terrorist attack, the Magnox fuel would burn. I would say there’s many hundreds of tonnes in there. It could give rise to a very big radioactive release. It’s not for me to make comparisons with Chernobyl or Fukushima, but it could certainly cause serious contamination over a wide area and for a very long time.”

State of fuel is ‘very unstable’

The ponds were abandoned after they were overwhelmed with spent fuel in 1974. This was the time of Prime Minster Edward Heath’s ‘three-day week’ when coal miners were on strike, causing fuel shortages in Britain’s power stations.

In order the ‘keep the lights on’, the UK’s fleet of nuclear power stations were run at full tilt, producing high volumes of spent fuel that the Sellafield re-processing facilities were unable to keep up with.

“During the three-day week they powered up the Magnox reactors to maximum, and so much fuel was coming into Sellafield that it overwhelmed the line, and stayed in the pool too long”, says Large.

“The magesium fuel rod coverings corroded due to the acidity in the ponds, and began to degrade and expose the nuclear fuel itself to the water, so they just lost control of the reprocessing line at a time when the ponds were crammed with intensely radioactive nuclear fuel.”

“This left the fuel in a very unstable condition, with actual nuclear fuel complete with uranium 238, 235 and all the fission products, in contact with water. The problem then is that you get corrosion with the formation of hydride salts which leads to swelling, outside cracks, and metal-air reactions”, said Large – who gave evidence on the topic to the House of Commons Environment Comittee in 1986.

The whole fuel ponds began to look like milk of magnesia, and what with the poor inventories that had been kept, no one even knew what was in there any more. Even the Euratom nuclear proliferation inspectors complained about it as there was by some estimates over a tonne of plutonium sitting there in the fuel rods and as sludge that was never properly accounded for.”

All part of Britain’s nuclear WMD programme

The two adjacent fuel storage ponds, which lie between the old Windscale nuclear piles, were part of the military plutonium production line using the Windscale spent fuel until the Windscale diasaster in 1957.

With the Windscale piles out of commission, they were then adapted to receive nuclear waste from civilian power stations such as Calder Hall and Hinkley Point.

The first pond in the plutonium production line is B30, which is open to the elements. From there underwater tunnels were used to convey the fuel-bearing skips to other ponds and silos within the adjacent building, where the fuel rods were ‘decanned’ from their cladding.

The fuel was then dissolved in concentrated acids in the B203 reprocessing plant, where the plutonium for Britain’s nuclear weapons programme was chemically separated using the PUREX process. Both ponds contain a mix of fuel, sludge, and other miscellaneous nuclear wastes.

Concrete is riddled with cracks

But in the 40 years since the ponds were abandoned, the entire system has broken down. Locks, gantries, lifts and valves are all broken, missing or seized up.

The concrete is riddled with cracks – including not just the ones that you can see, but also those out of sight in the connecting tunnels. The entire environment is far too radioactive for anyone to be able to enter.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has now started work on the ponds, but reassuring statements have been shown to be over-optimistic. “It’s very disturbing”, says Large. “They have been saying it was all under control, and they thought well cleared out. Now we know it’s not.”

However an important first stage has been completed – the ‘de-flocculation’ of the water so that it’s finally possible to see what’s there. This had previously been impossible due to particulate suspension and algal growth.

“For the first time in decades we can see down into the pond and see the contents, and it’s breathtaking!” comments Large. “It’s all thanks to the whistle blower that I’m looking at them. If the Euratom inspectors could see what we can see now, my there would have been a row! Maybe we should invite them back right now!”

A particlar problem arises from the sludge that has accummulated at the bottom of both ponds and skips, which requires especially careful handling. The sludge has to be kept under water in order to prevent its spontaneous ignition.

But it’s also essential to keep it undisturbed as if the sludges are resuspended into the main body of water, a part of the sludge will add into the surface ‘oil’ of fine particulates which can be released to the atmosphere with any surface water disturbance – giving rise to high radiation levels above the water.

This seriously complicates both the removal and packaging of the sludge itself, and of the fuel-containing skips.

Office of Nuclear Regulation response

Several days prior to publication The Ecologist contacted the Office of Nuclear Regulation, the statutory nuclear safety regulator, with pressing questions about the safety of the site, safety plans in the event of water loss or radioactive release, and whether anyone will be prosecuted over the abandonment of the ponds in this highly dangerous condition.

We have now received their replies:

ONR: “Sellafield is ONR’s highest regulatory priority and receives a significantly enhanced level of regulatory attention. It is also a recognised national priority to reduce the hazard and risk at Sellafield in a safe and timely manner.

“We are focusing significant regulatory attention on retrieval of legacy material from the legacy ponds as we recognise the high hazard and risk that these facilities present.”

TE: Are you satisfied that these nuclear installation are safe and ‘fit for purpose’?

“The legacy facilities at Sellafield were built in the 1950s and 1960s and therefore don’t meet modern engineering standards. Additionally, the legacy facilities were not designed with retrievals of material or decommissioning in mind.

“This does not mean that operations and activities on these facilities are unsafe, but it highlights the need for Sellafield Ltd to retrieve the legacy material in a safe manner as quickly as reasonably possible.

“Our new regulatory approach is aimed at encouraging and facilitating this objective.  We are working collaboratively with other key stakeholders to focus priorities and help drive improvements at Sellafield.

“The new strategy and collaborative working approach is having a positive impact on hazard and risk reduction, particularly in relation to the Pile Fuel Storage Pond where we have enabled the acceleration of removal of legacy canned fuel by four months. We expect this approach to enable Sellafield Ltd to retrieve further legacy material from these facilities ahead of schedule.”

Given that the operator essentially abandoned these ponds around 1974, is any person (real or corporate) to be prosecuted?

“ONR is not considering enforcement action in relation to the complex historical chain of events leading to the current situation at Sellafield but instead is focusing, together with other key stakeholders, on accelerating the reduction of hazard and risk on site, and how we can do that quickly and safely.

“The ONR’s top priority is ensuring that Sellafield Ltd maintains or improves upon its delivery programme for the remediation and decommissioning of the legacy facilities so that materials are removed  as quickly and safely as possible”

Do these ponds satisfy Safety Assessment Principles for new nuclear plant?

“The legacy ponds at Sellafield are old and as a result, do not meet the high engineering standards that would be required for modern nuclear facilities. These legacy ponds bring significant challenge, but we must focus our attention on improving the current situation.

“This does not mean that operations and activities on those facilities are unsafe, and ONR has in place a robust inspection regime to ensure that the licensee is doing all that is reasonably practicable to ensure that operations continue to remain safe.” 

Has ONR put in place any special measures under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2000?

“The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001, (REPPIR) require operators to assess the hazards on site and submit a report of this assessment to ONR.  As the operator, Sellafield Ltd are required to do this.

“This information, along with any additional information ONR may request, is used to determine the need for, and the extent of, the area requiring the local authority to produce an off-site emergency plan to protect the public in the unlikely event of a radiation emergency.”

Has the operator given ONR a hazard report relating to B29 and B30?

“ONR is fully aware of the hazard and risk associated with all facilities at the Sellafield site, and has an on-going programme of inspections.  These ensure that Sellafield Ltd is complying with its statutory obligations to protect the public and workers from the hazards on  the site.

Have risks associated with these buildings been incorporated into ONR report and placed in the public domain?

“ONR aims to be open and transparent in publishing our regulatory findings, and we routinely publish our regulatory decisions through project assessment reports and intervention records written by inspectors following site inspections.

“We also produce a quarterly report for the West Cumbria Site Stakeholder Group, which summarises our regulatory activity at Sellafield. There may be instances where it is not appropriate for us to publish certain reports, primarily as they may contain sensitive security information.”

Does Cumbria’s offsite emergency plan address the risks posed by B29 and B30?

“Under REPPIR, Sellafield Ltd are required to assess the hazards on site and submit a report of this assessment to ONR. This covers the whole site.”

It is reported that the ponds are leaking. Can you confirm this, and can you reveal where any leakage is going?

“ONR is not aware of any leaks from the ponds.”

 


Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




385924

Leaked Sellafield photos reveal ‘massive radioactive release’ threat Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Ecologist has received a shocking set of leaked images showing decrepit and grossly inadequate storage facilities for high level nuclear waste at the Sellafield nuclear plant.

The images (right), from an anonymous source, show the state of spent nuclear fuel storage ponds that were commissioned in 1952, and used until the mid-1970’s as short term storage for spent fuel until it could be re-processed, producing plutonium for military use. However they were completely abandoned in the mid-1970s and have been left derelict for almost 40 years.

The photographs show cracked concrete tanks holding water contaminated with high levels of radiation, seagulls bathing on the water, broken equipment, a dangerous mess of discarded items on elevated walkways, and weeds growing around the tanks.

The fuel storage ponds, the largest measuring 20m wide, 150m long and 6m deep, are now completely packed with spent fuel in disastrously poor condition.

If the ponds drain, the spent fuel may spontaneously ignite

The ponds are now undergoing decommissioning in order to restore them to safe condition. But the process is fraught with danger – and nuclear expert John Large warns that massive and uncontrolled radioactive releases to the environment could occur.

“This pond is build above ground”, he said. “It’s like an concrete dock full of water. But the concrete is in dreadful condition, degraded and fractured, and if the ponds drain, the Magnox fuel will ignite and that would lead to a massive release of radioactive material.

“Looking at the photos I am very disturbed at the degraded and run down condition of the structures and support services. In my opinion there is a significant risk that the system could fail.”

“If you got a breach of the wall by accident or by terrorist attack, the Magnox fuel would burn. I would say there’s many hundreds of tonnes in there. It could give rise to a very big radioactive release. It’s not for me to make comparisons with Chernobyl or Fukushima, but it could certainly cause serious contamination over a wide area and for a very long time.”

State of fuel is ‘very unstable’

The ponds were abandoned after they were overwhelmed with spent fuel in 1974. This was the time of Prime Minster Edward Heath’s ‘three-day week’ when coal miners were on strike, causing fuel shortages in Britain’s power stations.

In order the ‘keep the lights on’, the UK’s fleet of nuclear power stations were run at full tilt, producing high volumes of spent fuel that the Sellafield re-processing facilities were unable to keep up with.

“During the three-day week they powered up the Magnox reactors to maximum, and so much fuel was coming into Sellafield that it overwhelmed the line, and stayed in the pool too long”, says Large.

“The magesium fuel rod coverings corroded due to the acidity in the ponds, and began to degrade and expose the nuclear fuel itself to the water, so they just lost control of the reprocessing line at a time when the ponds were crammed with intensely radioactive nuclear fuel.”

“This left the fuel in a very unstable condition, with actual nuclear fuel complete with uranium 238, 235 and all the fission products, in contact with water. The problem then is that you get corrosion with the formation of hydride salts which leads to swelling, outside cracks, and metal-air reactions”, said Large – who gave evidence on the topic to the House of Commons Environment Comittee in 1986.

The whole fuel ponds began to look like milk of magnesia, and what with the poor inventories that had been kept, no one even knew what was in there any more. Even the Euratom nuclear proliferation inspectors complained about it as there was by some estimates over a tonne of plutonium sitting there in the fuel rods and as sludge that was never properly accounded for.”

All part of Britain’s nuclear WMD programme

The two adjacent fuel storage ponds, which lie between the old Windscale nuclear piles, were part of the military plutonium production line using the Windscale spent fuel until the Windscale diasaster in 1957.

With the Windscale piles out of commission, they were then adapted to receive nuclear waste from civilian power stations such as Calder Hall and Hinkley Point.

The first pond in the plutonium production line is B30, which is open to the elements. From there underwater tunnels were used to convey the fuel-bearing skips to other ponds and silos within the adjacent building, where the fuel rods were ‘decanned’ from their cladding.

The fuel was then dissolved in concentrated acids in the B203 reprocessing plant, where the plutonium for Britain’s nuclear weapons programme was chemically separated using the PUREX process. Both ponds contain a mix of fuel, sludge, and other miscellaneous nuclear wastes.

Concrete is riddled with cracks

But in the 40 years since the ponds were abandoned, the entire system has broken down. Locks, gantries, lifts and valves are all broken, missing or seized up.

The concrete is riddled with cracks – including not just the ones that you can see, but also those out of sight in the connecting tunnels. The entire environment is far too radioactive for anyone to be able to enter.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has now started work on the ponds, but reassuring statements have been shown to be over-optimistic. “It’s very disturbing”, says Large. “They have been saying it was all under control, and they thought well cleared out. Now we know it’s not.”

However an important first stage has been completed – the ‘de-flocculation’ of the water so that it’s finally possible to see what’s there. This had previously been impossible due to particulate suspension and algal growth.

“For the first time in decades we can see down into the pond and see the contents, and it’s breathtaking!” comments Large. “It’s all thanks to the whistle blower that I’m looking at them. If the Euratom inspectors could see what we can see now, my there would have been a row! Maybe we should invite them back right now!”

A particlar problem arises from the sludge that has accummulated at the bottom of both ponds and skips, which requires especially careful handling. The sludge has to be kept under water in order to prevent its spontaneous ignition.

But it’s also essential to keep it undisturbed as if the sludges are resuspended into the main body of water, a part of the sludge will add into the surface ‘oil’ of fine particulates which can be released to the atmosphere with any surface water disturbance – giving rise to high radiation levels above the water.

This seriously complicates both the removal and packaging of the sludge itself, and of the fuel-containing skips.

The Ecologist has contacted the Office of Nuclear Regulation, the statutory nuclear safety regulator, with pressing questions about the safety of the site, safety plans in the event of water loss or radioactive release, and whether anyone will be prosecuted over the abandonment of the ponds in this highly dangerous condition.

We await their reply.

 

 

 




385924

Leaked Sellafield photos reveal ‘massive radioactive release’ threat Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The Ecologist has received a shocking set of leaked images showing decrepit and grossly inadequate storage facilities for high level nuclear waste at the Sellafield nuclear plant.

The images (right), from an anonymous source, show the state of spent nuclear fuel storage ponds that were commissioned in 1952, and used until the mid-1970’s as short term storage for spent fuel until it could be re-processed, producing plutonium for military use. However they were completely abandoned in the mid-1970s and have been left derelict for almost 40 years.

The photographs show cracked concrete tanks holding water contaminated with high levels of radiation, seagulls bathing on the water, broken equipment, a dangerous mess of discarded items on elevated walkways, and weeds growing around the tanks.

The fuel storage ponds, the largest measuring 20m wide, 150m long and 6m deep, are now completely packed with spent fuel in disastrously poor condition.

If the ponds drain, the spent fuel may spontaneously ignite

The ponds are now undergoing decommissioning in order to restore them to safe condition. But the process is fraught with danger – and nuclear expert John Large warns that massive and uncontrolled radioactive releases to the environment could occur.

“This pond is build above ground”, he said. “It’s like an concrete dock full of water. But the concrete is in dreadful condition, degraded and fractured, and if the ponds drain, the Magnox fuel will ignite and that would lead to a massive release of radioactive material.

“Looking at the photos I am very disturbed at the degraded and run down condition of the structures and support services. In my opinion there is a significant risk that the system could fail.”

“If you got a breach of the wall by accident or by terrorist attack, the Magnox fuel would burn. I would say there’s many hundreds of tonnes in there. It could give rise to a very big radioactive release. It’s not for me to make comparisons with Chernobyl or Fukushima, but it could certainly cause serious contamination over a wide area and for a very long time.”

State of fuel is ‘very unstable’

The ponds were abandoned after they were overwhelmed with spent fuel in 1974. This was the time of Prime Minster Edward Heath’s ‘three-day week’ when coal miners were on strike, causing fuel shortages in Britain’s power stations.

In order the ‘keep the lights on’, the UK’s fleet of nuclear power stations were run at full tilt, producing high volumes of spent fuel that the Sellafield re-processing facilities were unable to keep up with.

“During the three-day week they powered up the Magnox reactors to maximum, and so much fuel was coming into Sellafield that it overwhelmed the line, and stayed in the pool too long”, says Large.

“The magesium fuel rod coverings corroded due to the acidity in the ponds, and began to degrade and expose the nuclear fuel itself to the water, so they just lost control of the reprocessing line at a time when the ponds were crammed with intensely radioactive nuclear fuel.”

“This left the fuel in a very unstable condition, with actual nuclear fuel complete with uranium 238, 235 and all the fission products, in contact with water. The problem then is that you get corrosion with the formation of hydride salts which leads to swelling, outside cracks, and metal-air reactions”, said Large – who gave evidence on the topic to the House of Commons Environment Comittee in 1986.

The whole fuel ponds began to look like milk of magnesia, and what with the poor inventories that had been kept, no one even knew what was in there any more. Even the Euratom nuclear proliferation inspectors complained about it as there was by some estimates over a tonne of plutonium sitting there in the fuel rods and as sludge that was never properly accounded for.”

All part of Britain’s nuclear WMD programme

The two adjacent fuel storage ponds, which lie between the old Windscale nuclear piles, were part of the military plutonium production line using the Windscale spent fuel until the Windscale diasaster in 1957.

With the Windscale piles out of commission, they were then adapted to receive nuclear waste from civilian power stations such as Calder Hall and Hinkley Point.

The first pond in the plutonium production line is B30, which is open to the elements. From there underwater tunnels were used to convey the fuel-bearing skips to other ponds and silos within the adjacent building, where the fuel rods were ‘decanned’ from their cladding.

The fuel was then dissolved in concentrated acids in the B203 reprocessing plant, where the plutonium for Britain’s nuclear weapons programme was chemically separated using the PUREX process. Both ponds contain a mix of fuel, sludge, and other miscellaneous nuclear wastes.

Concrete is riddled with cracks

But in the 40 years since the ponds were abandoned, the entire system has broken down. Locks, gantries, lifts and valves are all broken, missing or seized up.

The concrete is riddled with cracks – including not just the ones that you can see, but also those out of sight in the connecting tunnels. The entire environment is far too radioactive for anyone to be able to enter.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has now started work on the ponds, but reassuring statements have been shown to be over-optimistic. “It’s very disturbing”, says Large. “They have been saying it was all under control, and they thought well cleared out. Now we know it’s not.”

However an important first stage has been completed – the ‘de-flocculation’ of the water so that it’s finally possible to see what’s there. This had previously been impossible due to particulate suspension and algal growth.

“For the first time in decades we can see down into the pond and see the contents, and it’s breathtaking!” comments Large. “It’s all thanks to the whistle blower that I’m looking at them. If the Euratom inspectors could see what we can see now, my there would have been a row! Maybe we should invite them back right now!”

A particlar problem arises from the sludge that has accummulated at the bottom of both ponds and skips, which requires especially careful handling. The sludge has to be kept under water in order to prevent its spontaneous ignition.

But it’s also essential to keep it undisturbed as if the sludges are resuspended into the main body of water, a part of the sludge will add into the surface ‘oil’ of fine particulates which can be released to the atmosphere with any surface water disturbance – giving rise to high radiation levels above the water.

This seriously complicates both the removal and packaging of the sludge itself, and of the fuel-containing skips.

The Ecologist has contacted the Office of Nuclear Regulation, the statutory nuclear safety regulator, with pressing questions about the safety of the site, safety plans in the event of water loss or radioactive release, and whether anyone will be prosecuted over the abandonment of the ponds in this highly dangerous condition.

We await their reply.

 

 

 




385924