Lydd Airport Inquiry resumes: Dungeness as a Fukushima in the making?

16.5..2011 (Lydd Airport Action Group)
 
At Lydd Airport’s public inquiry on Wednesday May 18th, Lydd Airport Action Group
(LAAG) begins its nuclear safety case with John Large, the first of four experts
engaged by LAAG to demonstrate that it is inherently unsafe for a regional airport
to be developed beside a nuclear power station complex.
 
Expansion will introduce a step change in the probability of a major nuclear
accident since large aircraft, such as Boeing 737s, will be taking off and landing
close to the Dungeness site.  Mr Large will outline the vulnerability of the Dungeness
nuclear power stations (Dungeness A and Dungeness B) to an aircraft crash and
reveal that the risk of serious radiological release remains on site well beyond
the decommissioning phase. 
Chartered Consulting Engineer John Large, who has first hand experience of dealing
with nuclear accidents, will demonstrate that even though he believes the reinforced concrete vessel of each reactor at Dungeness B would
most likely withstand the aircraft crash, subsidiary equipment failures caused
by the crash could lead to a very significant radiological release, mirroring
the situation at Fukushima.
 
The reactors at Fukushima shut down immediately with the strong earthquake as
they were designed to do, but the complete loss of power and auxiliary service
water supply which occurred after the tsunami, triggered the radiological release.

Previously a United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority University researcher, John
Large will also demonstrate the failure to assess and include Dungeness A and
the nuclear rail head in the crash damage safety assessment. This is despite the
admission by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) – now part of the Office
for Nuclear Regulation – that Dungeness A, despite ceasing power generation in
2006, is currently considered more dangerous that the operationally active Dungeness
B.  His evidence will also reveal a failure to undertake a demographic siting
assessment required to take account of the additional population flows produced
by the airport

Fukushima reminds us that incredible events can and do happen which is why they
should be avoided. Just as Japan will be questioning the wisdom of locating nuclear
power station on a coastline exposed to tsunamis, the UK should not choose to
expand an airport next to a nuclear power station because it is inherently unsafe
and places the general public at risk. The nuclear regulator is looking at the
‘lessons to be learned’ from Fukushima which requires it to re-evaluate the way
in which it views this kind of accident where the probability may be low but where
the outcome is so extreme.

ENDS.

Follow updates on the Public Inquiry on Facebook at 
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lydd-Airport-Action-Group-LAAG/393524244539

 Peter Morris/ Lydd Airport Action Group  07766 680 990/ petersayno@aol.com                                                                                           

 Louise Barton/ Lydd Airport Action Group  01797 361 548
blmbarton@aol.com 
 
John Large Large & Associates  07971 088086/ 020 8317 2860
 largeassociates@largeassociates.com
see also

Nuclear power stations: Another safety exemption for aviation?

Date Added: 7th May 2011

 

Europe’s nuclear power plants would not have to prove their ability to withstand
the force of an aircraft crash under stress tests being  drafted by regulators.
The FT has reported that the 
possibility of a plane collision was the most glaring omission among scenarios
laid out in a proposal for the stress tests, the centrepiece of the EU’s plan
to ensure the safety of its 143 nuclear plants after Fukushima. Natural disasters
have to be taken account of.
https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/news/detail.php?art_id=2192
 
 
 
and
 
FT article  at
 
 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b6a8637c-75b4-11e0-80d5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Mhp3meNo
 

Discord over European nuclear plant tests

3.5.2011
 
Europe’s nuclear power plants would not have to prove their ability to withstand
the force of an aircraft crash under
stress tests being drafted by regulators.
The possibility of an aeroplane collision was the most glaring omission among
scenarios laid out in a proposal for the stress tests, the centrepiece of the
European Union’s plan to ensure the safety of its 143 nuclear plants after Japan’s
Fukushima crisis.
 
The draft cites the possibility of a loss of electrical power at nuclear facilities
– a situation that doomed Fukushima in March
after a huge earthquake and tsunami. But, in spite of pleas from the Austrian government, environmental groups and
some members of the European Parliament, the authors steered clear of aircraft
crashes because of the insistence of some member states that the tests be limited
to natural disasters and not man-made ones, such as terrorist attacks.
 
and it continues  ……….