Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) joins the debate on the review of nuclear emergency planning

TASC - the coalition of anti- and pro-nuclear groups fighting to stop the development of Sizewell C -  fed up with the constant delay over the review of the emergency planning issue around Sizewell, today distributed over 4000 flyers throughout Leiston and Saxmundham warning residents of the potential grave danger posed by Sizewell B and the future proposed development of two more reactors at Sizewell C.

The flyer argues that the current review of the 'detailed emergency evacuation zone (DEPZ) is in utter confusion.  The possible reduction from 2.4kms to 1km for the pre-distribution of potassium iodate tablets (stable iodine) is insulting to people in the wider East Suffolk area, as is the  suggestion that people outside the area “stay indoors and listen to local radio and TV for updates”  

It points out that, after the Fukushima disaster, the Japanese authorities imposed an exclusion zone of 20kms and that the USA required its own nationals to observe a self-imposed 80kms no-go area around the stricken plant.  The lessons learned exercise in which the UK nuclear industry participated in the wake of the event appears not to have stretched to taking on board the need to prepare people who live far away from the plant as well as those who live close by. In addition, it has been a source of concern to TASC that the new dry spent fuel store under construction at Sizewell B represents a terrorist  target and that the consequences of an attack on the store and the resulting radioactive contamination appear not to have been taken into account in the current review process.  TASC flyer also informs people that a notional Sizewell C will be three times as powerful as the Fukushima plant, making the potential consequences that much greater. 

Pete Wilkinson, Acting Chairman of TASC, said today, 'It is time we took the lid off this debate and told people exactly how the authorities are gambling with their lives, their livelihoods, their jobs, their homes and farmland.  According to the authoritative Max Planck Gesellschaft, nuclear accidents of a severe nature are likely to occur once every 10 - 20 years  (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522134942.htm)  

yet our authorities seem hell-bent on keeping the evacuation zone at a ridiculously small radius - only 23 individuals would be affected by a 1km radius evacuation zone at Sizewell -  so as not to frighten the second homers, tourists and business investments in the area.  It is our view that we all have a right to know the truth and that the authorities have a duty to provide unbiased and accurate information to a wide constituency of people. If the proposed 1km evacuation zone is agreed, it will not be with the consent of residents, nor with the agreement of experts outside the industry, because they are excluded from the discussions” 

The Government, the nuclear industry, the ONR, the county and district councils may do well to think again about the safety and well being of the residents of Suffolk . We should not ignore the perils of a nuclear accident. Plans  will be imposed on us by those who have a vested interest and those who pretend that nuclear accidents can not happen in the UK, despite the evidence to the contrary. We certainly hope it never happens, but not to prepare for it could be catastrophic and by increasing the density of population in East Suffolk may  cause even greater difficulty for any evacuation.

 The Councillors responsible for Planning at County and District when making decisions which increase the population, need to be aware of the possibility of having to safely evacuate  all residents, if they do not they  are acting recklessly and irresponsibly and should reconsider their position

For further information contact:

Pete Wilkinson (Chair of TASC) on  01728 660232  mb 07940524831

Joan Girling 01728 830965

 

 

The subject of the Sizewell B Emergency Plans were presented to the Sizewell Stakeholders Group on June 5th by Andy Osman Suffolk County Councilor and Gavin Smith from the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The Plans were met with incredulity. The Emergency Evacuation Zone is to be 1 kilometre (0.6 of a mile), a reduction from the current 2.4 km. The 23 people in the zone are to be told to either shelter/ evacuate and are to be given potassium Iodate tablets on a yearly basis to keep at hand if there is an emergency.

This is after being told just a week or two ago that the area to be covered would be according to Post Codes which would include Leiston but exclude Theberton and Eastbridge, Thorpeness and several other small villages.

UPDATE 19/06:

TASC has received a long email from the Andy Osman from Suffolk County Council in which he said

"Regrettably a number of people at the SSG meeting helped to confuse the message that we were trying to get across with regards to changes to emergency plans. I have asked the SSG Chair if I can come back to a sub group, along with EDF, ONR, Public Health England and DECC, to continue the process of explaining in detail the changes."

The changes to the plan have been made because the risk area for reasonably foreseeable emergencies which was calculated for sizewell A when in operation was set at 2.4kms. The ONR announcement in April confirmed that the risk had now reduced at the A site, due to decommissioning, and the B power station risk is now the driver for considering urgent countermeasures. This risk now extends no further than 1km.

For anyone with the time and tenacity to plough through it, the Sizewell Off Site Emergency Plan is published on the Suffolk resilience website : SRF Sizewell Off Site Emergency Plan
It contains the following:

6. Planning Assumptions for Emergency Arrangements.
REPPIR requires that an Off Site Emergency Plan is prepared to provide detailed emergency arrangements to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the restriction of exposure to ionising radiation and the health and safety of persons who may be affected by such reasonably foreseeable emergencies. Such a plan is based upon emergency planning zones that cover the area that in the opinion of the Executive any member of the public is likely to be affected by such radiation emergencies, this is called the DEPZ. This plan uses a tiered approach based upon hazard assessments to guide where emergency arrangements should be planned and to what degree. The resultant planning assumptions are as follows:

6.1. Reasonably Foreseeable. The Sizewell B Power Station Report of Assessment indicates that radiation from a reasonably foreseeable accident may require countermeasures to protect the public to be applied with minimal warning as follows:
• Evacuation - out to 200m
• Shelter - out to 1km
• Stable Iodine - out to 1km.
• Food monitoring out to 35km.

[then later:]

6.2 Beyond Design Basis/Reasonable Worst Case. The HSE document Outline Emergency Planning for Licensed Nuclear Power Stations indicates that in a hypothetical extended release scenario, countermeasures to protect the public may need to be applied within 10-12 hours of an emergency.
• Extended Evacuation - out to 4km
• Extended Shelter - out to 15km (shelter and stable iodine are
implemented together)
• Extended Stable Iodine - out to 15km.
The Suffolk Resilience Forum has agreed to introduce an EEPZ out to 15km based upon the Sizewell B power station.
Countermeasures within the EEPZ will be pre-planned but not deployed and public within this area will be able to access information on planned arrangements
 

News from the East Anglian Daily Times 30/01/14

A community group fears a big increase in traffic and a large influx of workers could turn a small country parish into an “industrial city” if the Sizewell C nuclear power project goes ahead.

The Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group was formed last year after proposals were put forward for a workers’ hostel in the parish and the use of the existing B1122 road by construction traffic.

The group’s aims – to reduce the impact on the community if the project does go ahead – have now been given overwhelming support by nearly 70 local people who attended a public meeting.

A report produced by the group says: “The combined effect of a massive increase in traffic, and the huge influx of workers, is out of scale with the area. A small country parish will be turned into an industrial city.”

Concerns highlighted include the impact on the environment, including noise and light pollution, and the risk of flooding and coastal instability endangering the power station.

However, the biggest worries include the possible siting of a 3,000-bed workers’ hostel amidst fears it would “swamp the tiny village of Eastbridge and completely overwhelm the local infrastructure”.

The group believes the B1122 is “unfit for purpose” in terms of Sizewell C traffic and it wants serious consideration given to proposals – first examined at the Sizewell B inquiry 30 years ago – for a new cross-country road from the nuclear site to the A12.

Local parishes are concerned that a year after EDF Energy’s Stage 1 public consultation no estimates for road, rail and sea traffic have been published.

Su Swallow, who co-chaired the meeting, said: “Underlying all our concerns is the fact that, a year after Stage 1 Consultation, too many questions remain unanswered by EDF and as long as that remains the case, it is not possible to formulate informed responses and thereby try to influence the planning of this major project.”

Suffolk County Council is currently undertaking a “desk-top” study of ideas which include a new cross-country road route. The study will subsequently be used in talks with EDF Energy.

An EDF Energy spokesman said the company was working closely with the county council which was aware of the process involved in assessing the transport impact.

This is a lengthy process which involves consideration of the responses to Stage 1 consultation, careful examination of the capacity of sea and rail transport and development of the project proposals. Residents and local community groups indicated that they would like to see more details at the next stage of formal consultation and that is what we are working on to provide,” it said.

The company says it hopes to launch its Stage 2 public consultation “later this year”.

 

David Cameron and Vincent de Rivas (boss of EDF) have both claimed recently that 25,000 jobs will be created at Hinkley, and the same figures have been bandied about for Sizewell C. Talk of This number of jobs is highly misleading as the figures are calculated on jobs of 1 year duration only, so if everyone works for 2 years, the number becomes 12,500 jobs and so on. A recent edition of nuclear issues, a news sheet sent out by SONE (Supporters Of Nuclear Energy) highlighted concerns that jobs would not be taken by UK businesses. An extract is copied below:

Even more depressing

According to EDF it seems that the UK, has now lost its opportunity to contribute to the nuclear expansion which is now on course, not only in the UK, but in many other countries. In an article in the Guardian (15 Oct) the Commercial Director for nuclear new build at EDF Energy asserts that “most of the available contracts could be beyond UK suppliers, which are struggling to meet the complex safety and quality standards of the nuclear industry.” For EDF all we seem capable for is the civil works – “muck shifting”.

Reports from the Royal Academy of Engineering have established that, with the experience gained follow-on replica stations are cheaper than first of a kind, and also, (and this is the point emphasised by EDF), that “Subcontractors should be of high quality and experienced in nuclear construction, or taught the necessary special skills and requirements for quality, traceability and documentation.” Obviously if British subcontractors are excluded from Hinkley C contracts they will never have the opportunity to acquire these capabilities. The Government should surely insist, as part of the generous strike price subsidy, that British companies be given a share in Hinkley C to enable them to build up these skills so that they can then bid for further nuclear contracts in this country and also overseas. Otherwise the only nuclear expertise British industry can claim will be in the shutting down and decommissioning of nuclear stations.”

link to original article: www.sone.org.uk/2013-nuclear-issues-vol-36-10/

30 October 2013

Flabbergasted – The Hinkley Point Contract

This is copied from the website of  Liberum Capital, an independant investment bank

http://www.liberumcapital.com/pdf/ULkWtp00.pdf

 

Summary

Based on the disclosure so far this looks likely to be an outstanding deal for Edf

and its partners. On a leveraged basis we expect Edf to earn a Return on Equity

(ROE) well in excess of 20% and possibly as high as 35%. We forecast that cash

dividends of between £65bn to £80bn should be payable during the life of the Cfd.

Note that paying these dividends would still allow Edf to pay off all construction

debt within the term of the Cfd. When the station commissions in 2023 the strike

price will likely be above £121/MWh. For this to be competitive with fossil fuels,

the gas price will need to have increased by at least 130% from today’s levels.

Annual PBT should total c.£1bn (2013 money) pa at commissioning

(assuming 65% leverage) which compares to a total of £2.1bn EBIT reported

by the big six UK energy suppliers in 2012 for their generation businesses.

Once again, the UK government is taking a massive bet that fossil fuel prices

will be extremely high in the future. If that bet proves to be wrong then this

contract will look economically insane when HPC commissions. We are frankly

staggered that the UK government thinks it is appropriate to take such a bet and

under-write the economics of any power station that costs £5m per MW and

takes 9 years to build.

 

Introduction:

We have been a bit pre-occupied so have not had the opportunity to comment

on last weeks signing of the Heads of Terms agreement between Edf and the

UK government to build twin 1,600MW rectors at Hinkley Point. But having

considered the known terms of the deal, we are flabbergasted that the UK

government has committed future generations of consumers to the costs

that will flow from this deal. The full terms of the contract has not been released

so our modelling of the project necessarily contains a number of assumption

- which we will outline later. But the known facts are as follows:

Construction costs:

£8bn per reactor, or £5m per MW. As far as we can see this makes Hinkley

Point the most expensive power station in the world (excluding hydro

schemes) on a per MW basis. By way of contrast, for the cost of £16bn for

the 3,200MW to be built the UK could build 27,000MW ofnew CCGT gas

fired power stations solving the ‘energy crunch’ for a generation.

Construction period:

Edf has been given an astonishing 9 years to complete the construction.

This makes Hinkley Point both the most expensive power station in the world

and also the plant with the longest construction period.

Construction Risk:

The UK government are claiming that Edf are taking the construction risk.

But with an £8bn build cost, and a 9 year construction program, Edf have

built in so much fat into the project that a cost / time over-run should be

near impossible.

Strike Price:

Edf will receive £92.50 per MWh in 2012 prices. But with construction not due

to complete until 2023. Edf can expect an actual revenue of around

£121per MWh once the station opens

Strike Price indexing:

Perhaps the extraordinary feature of the deal is the 35 year inflation

indexing of the strike price. Nuclear stations have a very high revenue

to operating cost ratios. By granting full indexing of the revenue line

Edf are handed the opportunity to earn extra-ordinary returns as the

project matures.

Cdf length:

Has been set at 35 years. This means that the full economics of the

reactors will be recovered within the first 35 years when the stations

have an 60 year expected life span.

Rate of Return:

Edf have stated that they can expect to earn a 10% Project IRR. This suggests

10% IRR on an unlevered basis. Edf also suggest that they may seek 65%

non recourse financing which, on our numbers, suggests a 14.5% equity IRR