May 18, 2011

expert reaction to the Weightman Review of nuclear energy in the UK

Following the earthquake and ensuing nuclear crisis in Japan, the UK’s chief nuclear inspector Mike Weightman was asked to complete a review of the implications of the events in Fukushima for new nuclear build in the UK.

Prof Sir John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor, said:

“I welcome this authoritative and detailed interim report by Mike Weightman. With safety the top priority, it is right to examine rigorously where any lessons from Fukushima may be drawn for the UK’s nuclear energy activities. The main findings are important and reassuring: that the UK’s current safety regime is robust, and that the UK situation is very different to that in Japan. But we should not be complacent, and continuous improvement remains an underpinning principle to be applied.”

Prof Neil Hyatt, RAEng/NDA Chair in Radioactive Waste Management at the University of Sheffield, said:

“The substantial quantity of spent nuclear fuel stored on the Fukushima site increased the complexity and challenge of dealing with a severe nuclear accident. Learning from Fukushima, this report makes clear the need to minimise the quantity of spent fuel stored on UK reactor sites, which is to be welcomed.

“More broadly, the indefinite storage of substantial quantities of radioactive wastes in aged facilities on multiple UK nuclear sites must be subject to similar challenge. There is a clear need to process such wastes into passive safe materials to reduce on-site hazards, particularly in relation to an unforeseen and severe accident.”

Tony Roulstone FIMechE MIET, Course Director (MPhil in Nuclear Energy) at the University of Cambridge, said:

“The report looks good from a UK point of view – i.e. we have either different hazard levels, a different approach to safety, or different reactors. This is a good list of sensible recommendations. All of those differences are correct but the industry will need to do more to convince the public we have identified them and learned the lessons.

“As the report points out, the detailed information about the event is not available. Do we really understand what went on and why? The international community needs to get to the base data and the sequence of events from the accident to understand it much better if we are ever to convince the general public about nuclear safety. The Japanese are still not covering themselves in glory on information and can one expect the IAEA to suddenly change their behaviour?

“The questions (and politics) around the EU stress tests is un-addressed. What was supposed to convince the public could become a failure of the industry to respond!”

Prof Sue Ion, Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:

“Firstly we have in the ONR a world class expert regulator in whom we can have confidence so it is reassuring that Mike Weightman has found there is no need to curtail the operations of nuclear plants in the UK or to curtail the intentions to deploy modern new plants in the UK as our older stations retire.

“Clearly, as he points out, there are lessons to be learned and he has made a number of recommendations. But it is worth noting that vendors and utilities alike have always sought to continuously improve by taking account of lessons across the sector and now in particular at Fukushima those associated with plant layout, emergency response arrangements and prolonged loss of power and flood risk. In the UK, this practice of applying continuous improvement is an integral part of our regulatory regime.

“It is also helpful to note that the design of reactor affected in Japan was over 40 years old and ever since Three Mile Island designs have been improved to very significantly improve safety. The designs proposed for the UK are the most modern international designs available.”