Latest news with #OfficeforNuclearRegulation
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- General
- The Herald Scotland
Why Torness nuclear power plant is not all it's cracked up to be
The risk of a nuclear accident is thought to be relatively high in new reactors as they are broken in. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both in their break-in phase when accidents occurred. Then the risk lowers in mid-life. But as reactors become older, as with any other sort of equipment, there is an increased risk of age-related failures. The Fukushima reactors began commercial operation between 1971 and 1975, so were over 40 years old when the meltdowns occurred. Torness and Hunterston B are both Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs) which opened in 1976 and 1989 respectively. There were an estimated 586 cracks across the two Hunterston B reactors when it was eventually forced to close in January 2022. There are a similar number of cracks in just one of the two reactors at Torness, with cracks also starting to appear in the other reactor. Cracking in the graphite core of these reactors is a problem because graphite debris could build up in the fuel channels comprising the operator's ability to keep the fuel cool and misshapen bricks could make inserting the control rods difficult. In a worst-case either of these could lead to a meltdown. The late John Large, a nuclear engineering consultant, explained that cracks also cast doubt on the safety of these reactors in the event of an emergency like an earthquake. A cracked and deteriorating core has lost its residual strength. If the core is wobbled by a small earthquake the core could become misaligned, and the fuel modules could get stuck in the core. Then the fuel temperature would get raised and could undergo a melt. If the radioactivity gets into the gas stream and the reactor is venting because it's over pressurised then you have a release the radioactive gas into the atmosphere and you have dispersion and a contamination problem. Pete Roche (Image: NQ) Clearly, it's time for the ageing Torness reactors to be closed. Keeping them open any longer would be gambling with public safety. We also have to bear in mind that there is a significant design difference at Torness, compared with Hunterston, which could make the cracking problem worse. The Torness reactors have seal rings between the graphite bricks that make up the reactor core. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) says there could be 'a systematic failure' of the seal rings after cracking. In January 2020, ONR brought forward the date when it expected to start seeing cracks appearing at Torness by six years but the closure date was only brought forward by two years from 2030 to 2028. Logically, we might have expected Torness to close in 2024. Then, in January 2024, in a bizarre switch, EDF changed its mind, and reverted to a 2030 closure date 'subject to plant inspections and regulatory approvals'. READ MORE on the Future of Torness series: Torness was only ever expected to operate for 30 or at most 35 years, so it is now past its sell by date. With cracks appearing in both reactors the precautionary principle dictates that it is time to shut up shop. Jobs at Torness won't disappear immediately when the station closes. It took over three years to empty Hunterston B of fuel. After that it will take almost a century to dismantle the buildings, decommission the reactors and eradicate the radiation from the land and buildings, in fact, when Hunterston B transfers its ownership from EDF to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) next April, the Scottish Parliament has been told the NDA will probably need to recruit more staff to help with the decommissioning work. As far as building new reactors at Torness, or anywhere else in Scotland, whether large or small, is concerned, that would be the last thing Scotland needs. It is perfectly feasible to supply 100% of Scotland's energy (not just electricity) from renewable sources. Future of Torness logo (Image: NQ) In fact, a recent study by renowned energy modelling academics at the LUT University in Finland, showed that not only is a 100% renewable energy mix feasible for the whole UK but it would save well over £100 billion in achieving net zero by 2050, compared to the UK Government's current strategy. What we need to balance variable renewables and reduce payments for turning off renewables is not always on 24/7 nuclear reactors, but more energy storage and flexibility in electricity demand. Nuclear power is too slow, too inflexible and too expensive to play a role in cutting carbon emissions.
BBC News
16-06-2025
- General
- BBC News
BAE Systems fire improvements ordered at Barrow shipyard
BAE Systems has been told to improve its safety practices following a fire which broke out at its nuclear submarine shipyard last year. The blaze struck in the early hours of 30 October at the firm's site in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, where the UK's nuclear submarines are built. No-one was seriously injured and Cumbria Police said at the time that there was "no nuclear risk", but the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said five staff members had entered the site of the blaze while it was still ONR has told the company to put arrangements in place "to ensure the protection of workers in the event of a fire". BAE has been approached for comment. Of the five workers who entered Devonshire Dock Hall, two were then taken to hospital. However the pair were then soon discharged and able to return to work the same day, the ONR said. The ONR said BAE's procedures to ensure workers did not enter places of danger without "appropriate safety instructions" were "inadequate".There was also a lack of guidance to inform staff about what they should do in the event of a fire, it regulator said the firm needed to demonstrate suitable emergency arrangements in the event of a fire were in place by 12 September. Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
New Statesman
02-06-2025
- Business
- New Statesman
Labour needs an abundance mindset
Photo byIt once looked like Keir Starmer was going to be a pro-growth prime minister. Alas. It seems increasingly obvious that the government isn't committed enough to the reforms that are needed. The problems run deep. Growth and productivity have been slow, nearly flat, since 2008. The housing shortage in London and the south-east is getting worse. Cambridge is an economic powerhouse thanks to scientific research. But planning rules means there is no spare laboratory space. We cannot build any. We produce far less energy than France, and it costs a lot more. Cities like Manchester ought to be flourishing, but productivity is far lower in British cities than in other countries. Outside London, we are sluggish. A hundred years ago, Birmingham was a rival power to the capitol; today it is bankrupt and wretched. The reason is simple. We have too many rules that make everything too complicated and too slow. The tallest building outside of London was going to be built in Manchester but the process has been stalled because of an administrative error. An application to build a mansard roof on a house in Lambeth was rejected by the council because the house would 'dominate' the local area which is of 'low-scale character.' Imagine the horror of a discrete third floor in a two-floor neighbourhood! To get planning permission for a twenty-home development, developers must provide things like an Aviation Impact Assessment and a Public Art Strategy, among many others. Remember, this is before planning permission. In 2013 there was a proposal to build three nuclear reactors in Wales. Four of these exact reactors are already working in Japan, where they have been proven safe during significant earthquakes. Works in Progress reported that the Office for Nuclear Regulation demanded design changes for four and a half years. The aim was to reduce the amount of radiation being discharged. And they succeeded. The radiation was reduced by the amount that 'a human ingests when they consume a banana.' The planning permission alone for the Lower Thames Crossing was twice as expensive as an actual tunnel in Norway. If the government is going to fix this, it needs to get radical. In the USA, the need for similar reforms have become much more prominent recently thanks to Abundance, written by the journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. They argue that the American left is too concerned with blocking development. Worried that even something simple like building a toilet in a public park has become expensive and complicated, they argue for deregulation. This is a major shift on the American left from writers at the New York Times and the Atlantic. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe As Klein points out, what matters is the default. France is doing better than the UK on this because the default is that it is easier to build. Klein and Thompson have started the important work of reframing what seem like neo-liberal economic concerns into political reality. If Britain wants to be a country with a generous welfare system, it needs to be a country that actually builds enough decent homes for people. If we want to be a country that has excellent hospitals, we need cheap energy to run them. If we want Britain to thrive outside of London, we need the trains, roads, and laboratories to enable that thriving. If we want to have good jobs for working people, we need to have enough homes for them to live where they need to work. If we want our provincial cities to flourish, they need to be able to build transport infrastructure without spending an expensive decade in regulatory review. If we want energy bills to be cheaper for working families, we need to spend less than four years reducing the amount of radiation from a nuclear reactor by a literal banana's worth. We need this attitude shift in Britain. And fast. Apparently a lot of people in Labour are reading Abundance. And yet the government is planning to control where pensions are invested 'for the benefit of the economy.' America has the abundance movement. We have central planning for pension schemes. It will lead to lower returns, disincentivising savings. It's also deeply illiberal. Instead of building roads the government thinks it can plan my pension from Whitehall. Get real! And yet, as the economist Sam Bowman says, Britain is fixable. We don't need to invent anything. We simply need to build trams, homes, and energy plants like they do in other countries. The Democrats are waking up to the importance of this across the Atlantic. It is time for Labour to make the same shift. As well as Bowman, people like Ben Southwood, Samuel Hughes, Tim Leunig, Sam Dumitriu and Britain Remade, Stian Westlake, and many others are all working to raise these issues to the attention of policy makers and the public. But progress is slow. The government probably isn't going to do what is necessary. Ambitious talk of planning reform has become the petty chorus of telling developers to 'get on with it.' Rachel Reeves has promised more than a hundred billion of capital spending. This is as much as the government spends on debt repayment every year, which now costs more than Universal Credit. And spending all of that money is not much use if it all goes down the perpetual sink-hole of regulation and approvals. Despite the extent of the problems, the government is more interested in adjusting the ISA rules. This is destructive in itself, but while there is so much that needs doing, it is truly fiddling while Rome burns. There's another reason for the left to become more like Ezra Klein. Soon there won't be another option. If Starmer doesn't start ripping up the rule book, someone else will do it. Sooner or later, reform will come. Taxes and spending can only rise for so long while growth remains stagnant. And another decade of low productivity, low GDP-per-capita growth, not enough houses, energy infrastructure, roads, or reservoirs, and an over burdensome tax-and-spend regime to cap it all, will leave us requiring more and more radical reform. The longer the government runs a deficit (while already spending so much on debt repayments) without improving the economy, the more unavoidable the solution will become. Left long enough, that will mean another Margaret Thatcher. Sooner or later, there really will be no alternative. If Starmer wants to avoid empowering a new Thatcher as his eventual successor, he should take a lead from Klein and Thompson and act now. [See also: Why George Osborne still runs Britain] Related
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Nuclear site told to improve safety after worker hurt
Dounreay's operators have been told to improve safety at the site after a piece of equipment toppled over and injured a worker. The accident happened at the nuclear power complex, near Thurso in Caithness, in February. Industry watchdog the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said the worker escaped with minor injuries, but added that it considered the incident as "significant" and "preventable". ONR has issued Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS) with an improvement notice. NRS said it took the protection of people and the environment "very seriously". More stories from the Highlands and Islands News from the Highlands and Islands on BBC Sounds ONR said the a radiological contamination monitor, weighing about two tonnes, toppled over while it was being moved. Superintending inspector Tom Eagleton said: "This was a preventable incident that could have had serious consequences for those nearby. "The improvement notice requires the Dounreay site to implement measures that will reduce the risk of similar occurrences in the future. "Specifically, they must identify all operations involving the movement of heavy equipment and ensure comprehensive risk assessments and appropriate control measures are implemented before the work starts." NRS has until 25 July to comply with the notice. A spokesperson for NRS said: "We take the protection of people and the environment from harm very seriously. "We are taking action to strengthen our practices and management in this area, and will comply with the requirements of the notice received in April, having reported the incident to ONR and carried out an investigation." Dounreay was opened 70 years ago as an experimental nuclear power site and is now being decommissioned and the site shut down. Last year, ONR raised safety concerns about the state of some areas of the complex. It found corroded steelwork in a building being used to store drums of radioactive sodium, and leaks from low-level radioactive waste pits. NRS said it was carrying out urgent repairs and had an action plan to deal with other issues. These included ONR's warnings about old and degraded electric equipment and the site's stockpile of chemicals being over its set limit. ONR
Business Mayor
06-05-2025
- Business
- Business Mayor
Starmer ignored nuclear watchdog when he blamed regulations for delays
Keir Starmer ignored warnings from his nuclear safety watchdog that it was wrong to blame regulations for delays building new reactors when he launched a plan to revive the nuclear power industry. The prime minister unveiled the nuclear renaissance strategy in February and said investment had slumped because the industry was 'suffocated by regulations'. However, a document released under freedom of information law reveals that the UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) told the government in the run-up to the launch that claims about delays to nuclear power in a draft press release were 'not true'. Despite this, the claims were repeated in the final release. ONR was asked to comment on a draft government announcement of a taskforce to speed up the regulation of nuclear power. It made four corrections to the draft, which was passed to the investigative journalism cooperative The Ferret, and shared with the Guardian. But none of ONR's corrections were implemented when Starmer made the announcement on 6 February, under the headline 'Government rips up rules to fire up nuclear power'. The attack on nuclear regulations was part of Labour's attempt to prove its growth credentials and coincided with it clipping the wings of the competition watchdog and hauling in regulators to demand they do more to boost the economy. The draft release stated that three European regulatory regimes had reached different assessments of the design of the reactors being built at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, 'leading to delays and increased costs'. ONR said this was 'not accurate' and that it had refuted such claims before. 'Our feeling is that linking regulatory factors into the increasing Hinkley Point C costs and timeframes isn't true and the sentence doesn't stand up,' it said. ONR also suggested that the new taskforce should look at not the 'approval' but the 'deployment' of new reactor designs. 'The reactor approval process has no bearing on the overall speed of delivery, but rather construction,' it said. Neither amendment was made in Starmer's announcement, which reiterated the disputed wording in the draft. Two other changes suggested by ONR were also rejected. The energy company EDF predicted in 2007 that electricity from Hinkley Point C would be cooking Christmas turkeys in 2017. EDF said in January 2024 that the station might not be finished until 2031. The estimated total cost of building the plant has risen from £18bn in 2016 to £35bn in 2024. This could increase to £46bn when inflation is taken into account. According to ONR, its assessment of the reactor design was completed in 2012 but construction did not start until 2017. Its regulation had not delayed building since then, it said. Dave Cullen, who co-chairs a forum for ONR and campaign groups, described Starmer's announcement as misleading. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion 'I'm shocked by the cynical and unprofessional approach of the government to this announcement,' said Cullen, who is independent of ONR. 'It seems as though it would rather attack an imaginary problem than seriously consider how to approach energy security.' Andrew Blowers, an anti-nuclear campaigner and emeritus professor of social sciences at the Open University, accused Starmer of 'ignorant prejudice' in blaming regulators for delays. ONR said the draft press release was 'shared under a strict embargo just a few days before release, with an opportunity for ONR to make representations on accuracy.' It added: 'Dialogue about specific sections of the press release, and in some cases, representations made about the accuracy of sentences/sections is standard practice discussion between communications teams.' The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero did not address the rejection of ONR's corrections. 'ONR has been informed of the review and will provide an important source of expertise as it progresses,' a spokesperson said. An ONR spokesperson said: 'We were fully briefed by the government on its intentions to set up the nuclear regulatory taskforce but would not expect to be consulted on its formation and membership. We did however provide comments on a government press release for their consideration. 'Nuclear safety and the protection of workers and the public will always be our priority, but we are committed to regulating in a way that supports cost-effective, efficient nuclear deployment and technological advancements. 'We have welcomed the creation of the taskforce and look forward to discussing all aspects of our regulation with the review team, understanding how our regulation can be improved further and considering ways to speed up the safe delivery of new nuclear projects.'
