Nuclear Power in the

United Kingdom
(Updated 19 September 2016)
The UK has 15 reactors generating about 21% of
its electricity but almost half of this capacity is to
be retired by 2025.
The country has full fuel cycle facilities including
major reprocessing plants.
The UK has implemented a very thorough
assessment process for new reactor designs and
their siting.
The UK has privatized power generation and
liberalized its electricity market, which together
make major capital investments problematic.
The first of some 19 GWe of new-generation plants
is expected to be on line by 2025. The government
aims to have 16 GWe of new nuclear capacity
operating by 2030, with no restriction on foreign
equity.
Two of the three major projects involved in new
nuclear build has a reactor vendor involved with
60% and 100% of equity respectively.
In the late 1990s, nuclear power plants contributed
around 25% of total annual electricity generation in
the UK, but this has gradually declined as old
plants have been shut down and ageing-related
problems affect plant availability. Total capacity at
the end of 2014 was 97 GWe (according to
International Energy Agency data).
In 2015, 338 TWh of electricity was produced in the
UK (DECC data). This comprised 70 TWh (21%)
nuclear, 100 TWh (29.5%) from gas, 76 TWh (23%)
from coal, 2 TWh from oil, and 25% from
renewables: 40 TWh (12%) from wind, 7.5 TWh
from solar, 9 TWh hydro and pumped storage, 29

TWh from biofuels and 4 TWh from wastes. Net

electricity imports mostly nuclear were 21 TWh,
comprising 13.8 TWh from France, 8.0 TWh from
the Netherlands, and 0.9 TWh net was exported to
Ireland.
There is a 2000 MW high-voltage DC connection
with France and a 1000 MW one with Netherlands;
also a 1000 MW one with Belgium is under
construction for 2018, and a 1400 MWe link over
750 km with Norway is under construction for 2021
commissioning. A further 2000 MW connection to
Normandy was approved in September 2016 to
enable the import of French nuclear power from
2022. In 2015 the France link ran at 81% capacity
and the Netherlands one at 91%. Per capita UK
electricity consumption was about 4700 kWh in
2014.
In 2009, half of British gas was supplied from
imports (compared with 32% in 2007), and this is
expected to increase to at least 75% by 2015, as
domestic reserves are depleted.
North Sea oil has been a major energy and revenue
source for the UK, but the resources are now
depleted and the looming decommissioning cost is
about 30 billion, with the government liable for
60% of this.
UK energy policy since the 2008 Energy Act
through to July 2015 has been built around
reducing CO2 emissions rather than security of
supply or cost. In 2010-11 the price of renewable
energy certificates doubled the price or electricity
from those sources an increasing proportion,
including imports more than one-quarter. Hence
energy poverty is an issue in the UK (as
elsewhere), and in the winter of 2012-13 some
31,000 excess deaths mostly people over 75
were reported by the Office of National Statistics,

the highest figure since 2008. Since wind is

intermittent, it displaces CCGT power and
compromises the economics of that. From August
2015 renewables no longer receive climate change
levy exemption certificates, saving 3.9 billion over
five years. In 2013-14, 18.6 TWh was involved and
67.2 million certificates were issued or redeemed,
57% for wind, 17% for biomass and 12.6% for
hydro.
The power supply implication of the EU Renewable
Energy Directive mandating 15% of all energy, is
that 30% of UK electricity should come from
renewables by 2020.
One manifestation of the focus on renewables has
been the conversion of one 645 MWe unit of the
Drax coal-fired power plant to burn biomass,
mainly imported wood pellets, for a guaranteed
power price of 105/MWh. However, in April 2014
the second unit converted to biomass was denied
similar investment contract support, leaving it to
recoup costs from Renewables Obligation
Certificates (at 0.9 ROC/MWh; the average ROC
price in May 2014 was about 41.70) plus the
wholesale power price about 50/MWh. A court
appeal failed. However, the government has
offered an investment contract with price
guarantee for the third Drax unit. (See also UK
section in Energy Subsidies paper.) Each Drax unit
burning biomass uses about 4 million tonnes of
imported wood pellets per year. Drax is seen to be
the biggest single loser from removal of Climate
Change Levy exemption for renewables in August
2015.
In November 2015 the government articulated new
policy priorities for UK energy, involving possibly
phasing out coal-fired generation without CO2
abatement in 2025, building new gas-fired plants,

and much greater reliance on nuclear power and

offshore wind to grapple with a legacy of ageing,
often unreliable plant and undue reliance on coal.
The energy secretary said: "Opponents of nuclear
misread the science. It is safe and reliable. The
challenge, as with other low carbon technologies,
is to deliver nuclear power which is low cost as
well. Green energy must be cheap energy.
We are dealing with a legacy of under-investment
and with Hinkley Point C planning to start
generating in the mid-2020s, this is already
changing. It is imperative we do not make the
mistakes of the past and just build one nuclear
power station. There are plans for a new fleet of
nuclear power stations, including at Wylfa and
Moorside. It also means exploring new
opportunities like small modular reactors, which
hold the promise of low cost, low carbon energy."
UK generating capacity (2013) was 91.5 GWe,
comprising 35 GWe gas, 21 GWe coal, 9.9 GWe
nuclear, 11 GWe wind (21.7% load factor in 2010),
4.2 GWe hydro including pumped storage, 3.4 GWe
oil, 2 GWe biofuel & wastes. Peak demand in 2013
was 53.4 GWe.
The history and development of the UK nuclear
industry is covered in Appendix 1 to this paper,
Nuclear Development in the United Kingdom.
Currently, there are 15 operating reactors in the UK
totalling 9.5 GWe capacity. The last operating
Magnox reactor Wylfa 1 shut down in December
2015. This left seven twin-unit AGR stations and
one PWR, all owned and operated by a subsidiary
of France's EDF called EDF Energy.
Power reactors operating in the UK
Plant
Type
First power

Present capacity (MWe net)

Expected shutdown

Dungeness B 1&2AGR 2 x 520 1983 & 1985 2028

Hartlepool 1&2 AGR 595, 5851983 & 1984 2024
Heysham I 1&2 AGR 580, 5751983 & 1984 2024
Heysham II 1&2 AGR 2 x 610 1988
2030
Hinkley Point B 1&2 AGR 475, 4701976
2023
Hunterston B 1&2AGR 475, 4851976 & 1977 2023
Torness 1&2 AGR 590, 5951988 & 1989 2030
Sizewell B
PWR
1198
1995
2035
Total: 15 units
8883 MWe
Most AGR units are running at significantly less
than original or design capacity

Reactor life extensions

In the UK reactor life extensions are decided on
commercial grounds by the owners in the context
of 10-year safety reviews of all reactors undertaken
by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which in any
case will shut down any plant considered unsafe.
EDF Energy is planning life extensions averaging
eight years for the AGR units and announced a
seven-year life extension for Hinkley Point and
Hunterston in November 2012 and a five-year
extension for Hartlepool in November 2013. It
spent 150 million to prepare Dungeness for a 10year licence extension, to 2028, and this was
agreed by the ONR in mid-2014. The company
confirmed it in January 2015. In February 2016 it
announced five-year life extensions for Heysham I
and Hartlepool, to 2024, and seven-year life
extensions for Heysham II and Torness, to 2030.
EDF Energy spends about 600 million per year on
upgrades to eight plants (15 reactors) to enable
ongoing operation, this investment being
supported by the new capacity market operating
from 2014.
The company expects a 20-year life extension for
Sizewell B, taking it to 60 years as for similar US
PWR plants. In January 2015 the ONR approved a

ten-year extension to 2025.

New nuclear policy and procedure

It was originally intended that the Sizewell B

reactor would be the first of a fleet of PWRs but
these plans were abandoned in the 1990s. Since
then, the question of new nuclear build was
effectively ruled out until 2006, when a review of
energy policy reversed the government's
opposition to building new nuclear capacitya.
Government policy in England and Walesb has
since been supportive of new nuclear plants, which
should be financed and built by the private sector
with internalised waste and decommissioning costs
as per the industry norm internationally. To
facilitate new nuclear build, from 2006 the Labour
government implemented several measures, in
particular:
Streamlining the planning process.
Carrying out strategic siting assessment and
strategic environmental assessment processes to
identify and assess suitable sites for new nuclear
plants.
Ensuring that the regulators are equipped to prelicense designs for new build proposals (the
Generic Design Assessment process).
Electricity market reform to provide long-term sales
contracts for power, and a capacity market.
Legislating to ensure decommissioning and waste
management liabilities will be met from operational
revenue.
Strengthening or supplementing the EU Emissions
Trading Scheme to build investor confidence in
long-term carbon pricing.
The Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition
government elected in May 2010, followed by the
Conservative government elected in May
2015, continued to support nuclear power as a

high priority and followed through with these

initiatives, with minor exceptions noted below.
Following the referendum vote in mid-2016 to
leave the EU, the Department of Energy and
Climate Change (DECC) was abolished and UK
energy policy was transferred to the new
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy (BEIS), with the priority of building new
nuclear capacity affirmed.
Soon after this and in connection with final
government approval for the Hinkley Point C
project, the government introduced a legal
requirement that it holds a controlling special
share in all major infrastructure projects, including
nuclear power, in line with other major
economies. This was welcomed by proponents of
other new nuclear projects.

Planning
A new planning regime was introduced to aid the
installation of nuclear reactors as well as other
significant new infrastructure projects such as
railways, large wind farms, reservoirs, harbours,
airports and sewage treatment works. Under the
Planning Act 2008, the need for new infrastructure
would be addressed through a National Policy
Statement (NPS, see next section on Nuclear site
licensing and authorisation). Then, it was intended
that the local impacts of a particular development
would be handled by an independent Infrastructure
Planning Commission (IPC) rather than by Ministers
or local planning authorities. The IPC was formed in
October 2009, but the new coalition government
that took office following the 2010 general election
replaced the IPC with an advisory body and
returned decision-making power to the responsible
Ministerc. Under the Localism Act 2011, the IPC was
abolished and in April 2012 its staff and functions

were transferred to a new national infrastructure

directorate created within the Planning
Inspectorate (PINS).

Nuclear site licensing and authorisation

Between July and November 2008, a consultation
was carried out on a proposed strategic siting
assessment (SSA) process for identifying sites
which are suitable for new nuclear power stations
to be built by the end of 2025.11 Sites found to be
strategically suitable for new nuclear plants
through the SSA would be listed in the Nuclear
National Policy Statement (Nuclear NPS).
In its January 2009 response to the consultation12,
the government invited nominations for sites to be
assessed for their suitability for the deployment of
new nuclear power stations by 2025. Eleven sites
were nominated and, following assessment of
these sites, the government formed the
"preliminary conclusion" that all of the nominated
sites, with the exception of Dungeness, were
potentially suitabled. Three alternative sites
Druridge Bay in Northumberland, Kingsnorth in
Kent and Owston Ferry in South Yorkshire were
not considered to be suitable for nuclear
development before the end of 2025, although
they were said to be worthy of further
investigation. The ten sites included in the draft
Nuclear National Policy Statement are: Hinkley
Point, Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell and Wylfa, all of
which were the subject of existing proposals (see
below); as well as Bradwell, Braystones, Hartlepool,
Heysham, and Kirksanton. In October 2010, the
two greenfield sites near Sellafield Braystones
and Kirksanton were removed from the list, and
the other eight confirmed.
A consultation on six draft National Policy
Statements for energy infrastructure, including the

draft Nuclear NPS, ran from November 2009 to

February 2010. Following the May 2010 general
election, the new coalition government required all
National Policy Statements to be ratified by
parliament, confirming selection of the above eight
sites in July 2011 and introducing planning reforms
to allow plant construction to be expedited.
The minister also announced regulatory
justification of the AP1000 and EPR reactor designs
according to EU law, due to their potential for
increasing energy security and decreasing CO2
emissions outweighing any detrimente. HitachiGEs ABWR reactor design for Wylfa Newydd was
justified in December 2014 and confirmed by
Parliament in January 2015.
Late in July 2011 NNB Generation (EDF Energy
80%, Centrica 20%) submitted an application to
the UK Health and Safety Executive's Office for
Nuclear Regulation for a nuclear site license for two
Areva EPRs at Hinkley Point C. ONR assessed the
company's "suitability, capability and competence
to install, operate and decommission a nuclear
facility" and issued a licence in November 2012.
Local government had given permission to prepare
the site.

Generic design assessment

In June 2006, the UK's Health & Safety Executive
(HSE), which licenses nuclear reactors through its
Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), suggested a
two-phase licensing process similar to that in the
USAf. The first phase, developed in conjunction
with the Environment Agency (EA), is the generic
design assessment (GDA) processg. Considering
third-generation reactors, a generic design
authorisation for each type will be followed by siteand operator-specific licences. Phase 1 would focus
on design safety and take around three years to

complete; phase 2 is site- and operator-specific

and would take around 6-12 months.
Initial guidance on the GDA process was issued by
the HSE and EA in January 2007, and in July of that
year, applications for four reactor designs were
made:
UK EPR, submitted by Areva and EDF.
Westinghouse's AP1000.
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy's ESBWR.
AECL's ACR-1000.
Although the initial assessments of the four
designs found no shortfalls, AECL withdrew its
design from the GDA process in April 2008. Later,
in September 2008, assessment of the ESBWR was
halted after GE-Hitachi requested a temporary
suspension.
The HSE, through its Office for Nuclear Regulation
(ONR), was on course to completed the initial GDA
assessment for the two remaining designs by July
2011, although further processing was delayed
pending an HSE evaluation of lessons from the
Fukushima accident and approval of the reactor
vendors' responses to those. The ONR and EA
jointly issued interim design acceptance
confirmations (iDAC), and interim statements on
design acceptability (iSODA) for the two designs in
mid-December 2011. A full DAC and SODA may be
issued for the UK EPR by the end of 2012, but
Westinghouse requested a pause in the GDA
process pending customer input to finalizing it. As
Westinghouse became part of NuGen due to the
Toshiba 60% stake in that project, the process for
AP1000 resumed, and is scheduled to be
completed in March 2017 with issuance of the DAC
and SODA. To March 2016, the cost of the GDA for
the AP1000 was 30 million.
As the GDA proceeded, issues arose which were in

common with new capacity being built elsewhere,

particularly the EPR units in Finland and France.
This led to international collaboration and a joint
regulatory statement on the EPR control and
instrumentation among ONR, US NRC, France's ASN
and Finland's STUK. For the AP1000, the ONR is
drawing upon experience with the eight AP1000
units under construction in China and USA. More
broadly it relates to the Multinational Design
Evaluation Programme and will help improve the
harmonization of regulatory requirements
internationally.
Early in 2013 Hitachi-GE applied for GDA for its
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR), and in
October 2014 the ONR and EA completed the third
stage of this, and cleared it to proceed to the final
stage. In 2015 the ONR and EA had raised an issue
regarding reactor chemistry, and then another
regarding safety analysis. The company said the
GDA process was on schedule to be completed by
the end of 2017. There are four operable ABWR
units in Japan, while two more are under
construction. Two more are partly built in Taiwan
and one is planned for Lithuania. The design is
already licensed in Japan and the USA. It can run
on a full-core of mixed-oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel. To
March 2016, the cost of the GDA for the ABWR was
17.5 million.
In 2012 Rosatom announced that it intended to
apply for design certification for its VVER-TOI
reactor design of 1200 MWe, with a view to
Rusatom Overseas building them in UK. In June
2013 an intergovernmental agreement set up a
working group to explore possible Rosatom
involvement in UK nuclear power projects. This led
to a nuclear cooperation agreement in September
2013, immediately following which Rosatom, Rolls

Royce and Fortum agreed to prepare for submitting

an application for GDA for the VVER-TOI reactor,
possibly in 2015. Rolls-Royce will undertake
engineering and safety assessment work on the
VVER technology. Fortum operates two early but
westernised VVER units in Finland.
In 2015, China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN)
said it intended to apply in mid-2016 for GDA for
the 1150 MWe Hualong One (HPR1000) reactor
design, with a view to building it at Bradwell. A
joint venture with EDF Energy holding 33.5% and
CGN 66.5% will be formed for progressing the
GDA. The ONR said it is ready to commence the
GDA for the HPR1000, and is advising EDF and CGN
meanwhile.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a further GDA
task for the ONR. The National Nuclear Laboratory
in 2014 undertook a feasibility study on SMR
concepts, with its report published by the
government in July 2015. Following this, a second
phase of work is intended to provide the technical,
financial and economic evidence base required to
support a policy decision on SMRs. If a future
decision is to proceed with UK development and
deployment of SMRs, then further work on the
policy and commercial approach to delivering them
would need to be undertaken. NuScale expects to
apply for GDA in the UK in 2016.
In March 2016 the Department of Energy & Climate
Change (DECC) called for expressions of interest in
a competition to identify the best value SMR for the
UK. All proposals will require proceeding through
the GDA process in the UK see later section.

Funded decommissioning programme

The Energy Act 2008 stipulates that plant
operators are required to submit a Funded
Decommissioning Programme (FDP) before

construction on a new nuclear power station is

allowed to commenceh. The Funded
Decommissioning Programme must contain
detailed and costed plans for decommissioning,
waste management and disposal. The government
will set a fixed unit price for disposal of
intermediate-level wastes and used fuel, which will
include a significant risk premium and escalate
with inflation. During plant operation, operators will
need to set aside funds progressively into a secure
and independent fund. Ownership of wastes will
transfer to the government according to a schedule
to be agreed as part of the FDPi.

Emissions reductions for CO2

In its July 2006 energy review report, the
government said that the European Union
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS, now referred to as
the Emissions Trading System) must be
strengthened in its Phase III (2013-2020) in order
to "ensure that the EU ETS develops into a credible
long-term international framework for pricing
carbon."22 Should it be necessary to provide more
certainty to investors, the government said it
would "keep open the option of further measures
to reinforce the operation of the EU ETS in the UK."
A range of measures aimed at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions were introduced in the
Climate Change Act 2008, which provided for
legally binding greenhouse gas emissions
reduction targets of 80% by 2050 (compared with
1990 levels) and 34% by 2020. In May 2011, a
target of 51% reduction from 1990 levels for 20222027 was added. The fifth carbon budget set in
June 2016 for 2028-2032 aims to cut CO2
emissions from 1990 levels by 56.9%. Provisional
figures for 2015 show a 38% reduction from 1990
levels.

Following the 2010 general election, the new

coalition government announced a floor price for
carbon emissions, and this was introduced in April
2013 as the Carbon Price Floor tax. It taxes the
fossil fuels used for generating electricity to
achieve a minimum total rate for CO2 emissions,
considering both EU and domestic measures. The
total rate escalates to give a rising price curve. For
coal, the rate started off at 0.82 per GJ and rises
to 1.55/GJ in April 2016. This adds about 18 per
tonne of CO2 to the much lower ETS figure, to give
about 23/t.

Electricity market reform

In July 2011 the government issued a new white

paper on Electricity Market Reform (EMR). Its four
main proposals were: a carbon floor price; longterm contracts (involving feed-in tariffs with a
'contract for difference') to stabilise financial
returns from low-carbon generation; a mechanism
to ensure the provision of sufficient generating
capacity nationwide; and an Emissions
Performance Standard to prohibit the construction
of high-carbon generation.
The carbon floor price has long been seen as
fundamental to the economics of new UK nuclear
power, with the EU's Emissions Trading System
(ETS) not producing high enough prices to steer
markets towards low-carbon power. Having
legislated this in 2011, the UK government set a
minimum of 16 per tonne CO2 from 2013, rising
steadily to 30 per tonne in 2020 and accelerating
to 70 per tonne in 2030. This then is essentially a
carbon tax, with a longer timeframe and higher
level than the UK Climate Change Levy on fossil
fuel and nuclear sources, which continues to 2023.
Draft legislation was published in May 2012 to
reform the UK's electricity market and thus secure

the necessary investment for a low-carbon energy

mix including new nuclear. The government
estimates that 110 billion of new investment
needs to be attracted to develop the low-carbon
generating capacity required in the next ten years
while meeting the country's climate change goals.
New nuclear capacity, along with renewables and
fossil fuels abated by carbon capture and storage
(CCS) are recognised in the document as the three
families of low-carbon generation with roles to play.
All have high capital cost, so investors must have
some assurance of commercial, or at least stable,
returns. The EMR bill elaborates the policy
instruments in the 2011 white paper. The main
elements are:
Feed-in tariffs (FIT), relatively common in several
countries, give particular low-carbon producers a
predictable return per kWh over a set period
regardless of prevailing market prices. The FIT here
will replace the UK Renewables Obligation which
requires retailers to buy a certain proportion of
power from renewable sources, excluding nuclear,
in 2017 (RO certificates in mid-2012 traded at 5.5
p/kWh). In UK the FIT will be effected through
contracts for difference (CfD) which remove longterm exposure to electricity price volatility.
Capacity market measures will involve retainer
payments for dispatchable capacity. They will work
through penalties and availability payments to
provide an incentive for generators to be available
when needed.
The Emissions Performance Standard is a
'regulatory backstop' to the other measures,
setting 450 g/kWh CO2 as a limit under which new
fossil-fuel plants must operate. This will allow gas
but not coal without carbon capture & storage.
The UK National Grid is the independent system

operator to be the delivery body for EMR and will

administer the CfDs and the capacity market, with
some involvement of the government regulator,
Ofgem. The bill will be introduced into parliament
at the end of November. The minimum prices new
renewables sources can receive for selling into the
grid were published in June 2013 and will apply
until 2017, when prices will be subject to revision.
The Energy Bill introduced into parliament at the
end of November 2012 was in line with the above
principles and designed to attract investment to
bring about a transformation of the electricity
market, moving from predominantly a fossil-fuel to
a diverse low-carbon generation mix. The Energy
Act passed into law in December 2013, along with
new provisions including the Supplier Obligation. It
included:
Contracts for difference (CfDs) to stabilise
revenues for investors in low-carbon electricity
generation projects renewables, new nuclear or
CCS helping developers secure the large upfront
capital costs for low carbon infrastructure while
protecting consumers from rising energy bills. The
feed-in tariff with CfD means that if the market
price is lower than the agreed strike price, the
government pays that difference per kWh, passing
that cost onto electricity consumers. If the market
is above the strike price the generator pays the
difference to electricity consumers by reducing
average tariffs. CfDs are long-term contracts which
can be capped regarding quantity of power. The
idea is that the carbon floor price will drive the
market towards any FIT or strike price level applied
to clean sources. Government consulted on the
first set of CfD strike prices for renewables in mid2013 and expected to be able to announce the
2014-2018 prices by the end of 2013. Draft strike

prices for renewables include 155/MWh for

offshore wind, 100/MWh for onshore wind and
125/MWh for large solar PV. In 2014 a 15-year CfD
for the 300 MWe Tees biomass plant was issued at
125/MWh. (The CfD strike prices for Hinkley Point C
nuclear plant are set out below.) EC state aid
clearance was granted in October 2014. The Czech
Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are
considering the UK CfD model for their own nuclear
projects.
A new government-owned company to act as a
single counterparty to the CfDs with eligible
generators, and to be central to industry cash flow.
A two-stage process means projects are able to
apply to the company for a CfD contract once they
have cleared meaningful hurdles such as planning
permission and a grid connection agreement, and
then a small number of hurdles post-CfD award in
order to retain the contract.
Introduction of a capacity market (CM), allowing for
capacity auctions, at the minister's discretion. The
capacity market will involve retainer payments for
dispatchable capacity to be built and maintained to
ensure that demand can be met regardless of
short-term conditions affecting other generators. It
is to provide an insurance policy against future
supply shortages, helping to ensure reliable
electricity supplies at affordable cost. The first
capacity auction is scheduled for December 2014,
for delivery during winter 2018-19. See subsection
below.
A final investment decision (FID) enabling process
will enable investment in low-carbon projects to
come forward for early projects, guarding against
delays to investment in energy infrastructure.
Transitional measures will allow renewable
investors to choose between the new system and

the existing renewables obligation which will

remain stable up to 2017.
Government had legislated to establish a carbon
price floor from April 2013, to underpin the move
to a low-carbon energy future. The carbon price
support (CPS) tax will be the difference between
the UK floor price and the ETS traded price. Per
tonne of CO2, this CPS cap rises from an original
4.94 to 18 from 2015 to 2020. (It was to rise to
21.20 for 2016-17 and 24.62 for 2017-18, but
these rates were abandoned due to public
pressure.) Hence from 2015 the CPS costs a coalfired plant about 16-18/MWh.
The supplier obligation is a compulsory levy and it
will be enforceable by the government-owned
counterparty company as if it were a licence
condition. It will be collected on a unit cost fixed
rate (/MWh). Each supplier will therefore collect it
in line with its market share and pay it to the
counterparty for passing onto the generators. The
supplier obligation will need to be funded by the
suppliers so that payments under CfDs can be
made regardless of collections from customers,
which started in December 2014.
As well as price per MWh, the question of
guaranteed load factor arises so that output is
sufficient to amortise the investment, in the face of
renewables preferential grid access. For Hinkley
Point, the agreement provides protection from
being curtailed without appropriate compensation.
A UK guarantee scheme was established in
October 2012 to support infrastructure projects
seeking finance and investment, and this is being
applied to the initial nuclear power projects. A 2
billion loan guarantee for Hinkley Point C was
announced in September 2015, and a Treasury
statement then said that the government

guarantee "is also expected to open the door to

unprecedented collaboration in the UK and China
on the construction of new nuclear power stations."
It added: "The agreement also boosts work being
carried out under a memorandum of understanding
on fuel cycle collaboration signed with China in
2014, which has the potential to leverage UK
expertise in waste management and
decommissioning as well as support UK growth."

Capacity market
In March 2014 the government announced the
design of the capacity market to provide security of
supply from 2018 by encouraging investment in
reliable generating capacity.* The UK is the first
country in Europe to establish a reserve capacity
market to ensure supplies when intermittent
renewables sources fail to produce. This is a
pioneering concept and likely of great interest
internationally. Capacity agreements for new
dispatchable capacity will be for 15 years, and
agreements for existing capacity will be for one or
three years. A provider of reserve capacity will
receive a warning of at least four hours from the
National Grid that the electricity system is under
stress. Penalties for unreliable capacity will be
capped at 200% of a providers monthly income
and 100% of their annual income. The capacity
market will not affect dispatch rules when the
power is needed.
* A capacity market normally works by producers bidding in their capacity
at cost of production, and the grid operator accepts the lowest bids up to
the capacity it thinks will be required to meet demand, with a little
reserve. The highest bids accepted represent the clearing price, set by the
most expensive plant needed to meet demand, and this is what all
accepted bidders are paid. The UK system will be a variant of this, and
with the uncertainties of forecasting demand and the four years lead time
between auction and delivery, supplementary auctions will be held one
year ahead (especially for demand-side response) or private trading can
adjust for contingencies. Successful bidders for new capacity will be able
to write up to 15-year contracts at the auction clearing price, those with
existing capacity, rolling one-year contracts.

An auction for pre-qualified capacity will be held

every year, for delivery four years ahead. A
demand curve for the year (eg 2018-19) will be
published before the auctions and will be based
around a target capacity level together with an
estimate of the reasonable cost of new capacity
(referred to as the net cost of new entry, or netCONE). The auction can include demand-side
response, but excludes capacity receiving support
under renewables obligation (RO), feed-in tariff
(FIT) or contract for difference (CfD).
The capacity auction is capped at 75/kW, which
relates to the cost of building a new combined
cycle gas-turbine. Following EC state aid clearance
in July, the first auction in December 2014 for
2018-19 delivery was for a total of 49.26 GWe*.
Almost 65 GWe was bid, and it cleared at
19.40/kW/yr, well below expectations. Most of the
capacity already exists and was signed up under
one-year contracts. A further 3 GWe of existing
capacity was signed for three-year contracts, 2.4
GWe was for new capacity under 15-year contracts.
Re technology, 45% was CCGT, 19% coal/biomass,
and 16% nuclear.
* A further 2.5 GWe will be contracted in late 2017 for one
year 2018-19.

The net cost of new entry (net-CONE) is put at

49/kW. Capacity providers successful in the
auction will be paid by retail suppliers in the year
of delivery. Payments will be administered by
Elexon, as settlement agent. They will be included
in the Levy Control Framework (LCF) with
Renewables Obligation, CfDs, and small-scale FITs
paid for in energy bills. The LCF budget cap is
expected to increase from 3.184 billion in 201314 to 7.6 billion in 2020-21. About 62 GWe of
capacity had pre-qualified in October to bid in the

auction, 7.6 GWe of this being new build plant

bidding for 15-year contracts, 19 GWe being
existing plant in need of refurbishment bidding for
three-year contracts this including all EDF
Energys nuclear plants and 35 GWe being
existing plant bidding for a one-year contract.
Some interim arrangements including demand side
will apply to cover the period to 2018. The
Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC)
estimated that the operation of the capacity
market would add about 15 per year to the
average domestic bill to 2030.
<p><img alt="Nuclear Power Plants in the United
Kingdom" src="/getmedia/40aed7d5-cef4-4199afec-fd58eab17c3f/nuclear-power-plants-in-theunited-kingdom.png.aspx" /></p>

Plans for new nuclear plants

The government assumed there will be a

requirement of 60 GWe of net new generating
capacity by 2025, of which 35 GWe is to come from
renewables, which have priority access to the
electricity grid as part of the EUs 2009 renewable
energy directive. The Draft National Policy
Statement for Nuclear Power Generation states
that the expectation is for "a significant proportion"
of the remaining 25 GWe to come from nuclear,
although the government has not set a fixed target
for nuclear capacityk. Government ministers have
consistently said that 16 GWe of new nuclear
capacity should be built at five sites by 2025,
though this target date has slipped to 2030.
Since the government reversed its unfavourable
policy towards nuclear in 2006, several utilities
have begun planning to build new nuclear plants.
The initial concern was that the most promising
sites were owned by only two organizations: British
Energy which had recently completed

restructuring following its financial collapse in 2002

(see section on British Energy in Appendix 1,
Nuclear Development in the United Kingdom); and
the government-owned Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA) which had recently taken
ownership of BNFL's and the UKAEA's nuclear sites
in order to decommission theml. Utilities wishing to
build new nuclear plants in the UK therefore had to
either acquire British Energy, or its sites; or acquire
land from the NDA.
There has been substantial international interest in
the UKs 21st century nuclear program. Frances
EDF, 85% owned by the French government,
successfully bid for British Energy, completing the
12.5 billion acquisition in January 2009. Later in
2009, Centrica bought a 20% stake in British
Energy for 2.3 billion. Conditions attached to the
acquisition of British Energy included the sale of
land at Wylfa, Bradwell and either Dungeness or
Heysham, as well as to relinquish one of the three
grid connection agreements it held for Hinkley
Point. British Energy became part of EDF Energy.
Major European utilities have shown considerable
interest in nuclear prospects, as described below.
Also Rosatom, owned by the Russian government,
had proposed taking equity in Horizon before it was
bought by Hitachi.
More recently several Chinese government-owned
companies, principally China General Nuclear
Group (CGN) have discussed taking equity in each
of the proposed nuclear developments. It was
reported that CGN would only proceed with taking
a share of Hinkley Point it had significant
operational control of any further nuclear plants,
notably Sizewell C. Government concern was
reported about Chinese government control
through CGN, compared with French government

control through EDF.

When CGN showed interest in buying Horizon, the
government said it could only have a minority
interest. Chinas State Nuclear Power Technology
Corporation (SNPTC) with Toshiba expressed
interest in buying Horizon (SNPTC brokered the
acceptance of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor in
China) and this became a Westinghouse - SNPTC
bid with Exelon. An Areva-CGN bid followed but
was withdrawn. SNPTC was said to be interested in
a share of NuGenerations Moorside project, but
has not confirmed this since Toshiba bought in.
In October 2013, following the signing of a
memorandum of understanding on nuclear power
cooperation by the two countries, the Chancellor
announced that the government approved Chinese
companies taking equity including potential
future majority stakes in the development of UKs
nuclear power projects. UK companies would have
access to business opportunities in Chinas nuclear
program. Immediately after this, EDF Group
announced that it had agreement in principle with
both CGN and China National Nuclear Corporation
(CNNC) to take substantial equity in the Hinkley
Point C project.
In January 2014 CGN said that would be a minority
shareholder in Hinkley Point C to lay the
foundation for further development in CGN-led
projects in the UK. It then plans to acquire a site,
and along with local and Chinese partners, to build
and operate nuclear power plants in the UK. No
particular reactor technology was mentioned, but
the UK government has confirmed that Chinese
companies can own and operate Chinese-designed
nuclear plants subject to normal approvals.

EDF Energy Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C

Present plans are for four EPR nuclear reactors to

be built by EDF Energy at Sizewell in Suffolk and

Hinkley Point in Somerset. The company applied
for consent to construct and operate the first two
(3260 MWe) at Hinkley Point in October 2011,
though the generic design assessment (GDA)
process on reactor designs was not concluded (see
section above on generic design assessment). EDF
envisaged having the first new reactor online by
2018. By mid-September 2010 EDF Energy had let
50 million in contracts for site works at Hinkley
Point, and by February 2013 pre-development
costs there had reached almost 1 billion. In March
2013 environmental permits were granted for the
plant operation, and planning permission was
received.
Through 2012 and most of 2013 EDF, parent
company of EDF Energy, was locked into
negotiations with the UK government to obtain "the
correct market framework [to] allow an appropriate
return on the massive investment required." A 1.2
billion civil engineering contract was deferred. In
June 2013 the government announced that it would
guarantee up to 10 billion in loans for the plant
under the 2012 UK Guarantee scheme for
infrastructure (and that CfD rates for wind power
would be at least 100 per MWh, and 155/MWh
for offshore wind). In September 2015 the
government announced a 2 billion loan guarantee
for the project, and said more would be available if
EDF met certain conditions. EDF said that this
would pave the way for a final investment
decision by energy company EDF, supported by
China General Nuclear (CGN) and China National
Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), later this year."
In October 2013 the government announced that
initial agreement had been reached with EDF
Group on the key terms of a proposed 16 billion*

investment contract for the Hinkley Point C nuclear

power station. The key terms include 35-year
contract for difference (CfD)**, the 'strike price' of
89.50/MWh being fully indexed to the Consumer
Price Index and conditional upon the Sizewell C
project proceeding. If it does not for any reason,
and the developer cannot share first-of-a-kind costs
across both, the strike price is to be 92.50/MWh.
The terms include compensation if output is
curtailed by the National Grid. EDF said that the
agreement in principle was not legally binding, and
depended on a positive decision from the European
Commission in relation to State Aid, following
which it would make a final investment decision on
the project. It said that following EC approval, first
concrete would be 30 months on, with construction
time 75+ months.
* this remains the overnight capital cost in 2012 ,
including some owners costs. A 24.5 billion figure has
been mentioned on the basis of including financing
(interest charges during construction) and inflation.
** The 35 years run from start-up during 2025-2029. After
2029 the CfD is shortened by one year of delay up to
2033, after which it would be cancelled. EdF Energy would
be able to get revenues from the market, but not top-up
revenues from the CfD.

In October 2014 the EC decided that revised UK

plans to support the construction and operation of
the project were in line with EU state aid rules. The
price support for electricity from the plant over 35
years was found to address a genuine market
failure. In the process of the investigation the UK
agreed to modify significantly the terms of the
project financing, by raising the guarantee fee paid
by the developer to the UK Treasury. Also as soon
as the operator's overall return on equity exceeds
the rate estimated at the time of the decision, any
gain will be shared with the public entity

supporting the long-term wholesale electricity price

through the CfD. This gain-share mechanism will
be in place not only for the 35-year support
duration as initially envisaged, but for the entire
60-year lifetime of the project. Moreover, if the
construction costs turn out to be lower than
expected, the gains will also be shared.
EDF announced in October 2013 that while it would
retain 45-50% of the Hinkley Point C project, two
Chinese companies, CGN and CNNC, would take
30-40% of it between them, Areva would take 10%,
and other interested parties might take up to
15%.* The French government holds 85% of EDF
and 80% of Areva, the Chinese companies are
wholly government-owned. In September 2015,
following Arevas financial losses, EDF confirmed
that Arevas 10% share was no longer on the
agenda.
* By the end of 2012 Centrica had expressed reservations
about its investment in the new plant and EDF was
discussing with China General Nuclear Power Holdings
(CGNPC, now CGN) about buying out Centrica or in some
other way taking equity in Hinkley Point. The two
companies are partners in the Taishan nuclear plant being
built in China, using EPR technology. Then in February
2013 Centrica said it would not proceed to invest in the
new units, citing uncertainty re project costs and schedule.
(It remains a 20% shareholder in EDF Energy's current
nuclear generation capacity at eight plants.) In August
2013 CGN confirmed that talks with EDF continued
regarding equity in Hinkley Point C.

In October 2015 a strategic investment agreement

was signed committing China General Nuclear
Corporation (CGN) to take 33.5% of the project,
and EDF initially being responsible for 66.5%, with
a view to selling this down to near 50%. CGNs
holding will be through its new company, General
Nuclear International. EDF Energy said that the
agreement sets the steps for a final investment

decision expected in September 2016 after

prolonged consultation with French unions. UK
trade unions expressed 100% support. Late in
July 2016 EDF made its decision to proceed with
the project, with full construction to begin in mid2019. However, the UK government then
unexpectedly said that it would take until
September for the new leadership to make a final
decision on the project. The Chinese ambassador
then urged the government to decide as soon as
possible, pointing out that the project "is the
considered outcome of a mutually beneficial
tripartite partnership between Britain, France and
China," and that the UK "could not have a better
partner" than CGN. After seven weeks of
uncertainty the government then gave approval,
after reaching a new agreement in principle with
EDF which means that the government will be able
to prevent the sale of EDFs controlling stake prior
to completion of construction.
EDF expects the first reactor to be operational 115
months after the investment decision and
government approval, hence early 2026. In May
2016 it put the cost at 18 billion including normal
contingencies, of which 2.4 billion had already
been spent.
EDF will act as architect-engineer. Contractors
include Areva for the reactor system, its fuel and
control and instrumentation, worth 1.7 billion;
Bouyges and Laing O'Rourke for civil engineering,
worth over 2 billion; GE and Alstom for the
conventional islands with two 1770 MWe Arabelle
turbines, worth $1.9 billion; and Costain for cooling
water intake tunnels (seven metres in diameter
with a total length of 11 km). Rolls-Royce will
provide some manufacturing of nuclear
components. The government and EDF said UK

companies could take up to 57% of the

construction work. The total number of workers on
the project could reach as high as 25,000, with a
peak of 5600 on site at one time, and EDF
estimating 900 permanent jobs when the units are
operational.
In China, EDF is in joint venture with CGN building
two EPR units at Taishan, the components are from
Japan and China, and the project is close to
schedule and budget. For Hinkley Point C, all
construction risks will remain with EDF and its
partners. As noted above, the Chinese investment
is seen as a foothold in UK, with a view to Chinese
reactors being built in future. In connection with
the Hinkley Point agreement, EDF and CGN have
also signed heads of agreement for a wider
partnership in developing new power plants at
Sizewell and Bradwell. They agreed to develop the
Sizewell C project to the point where a final
investment decision can be made, with a view to
building and operating two EPR reactors there.
During this development phase, EDF will take an
80% share while CGN will take a 20% share.

Horizon Wylfa Newydd and Oldbury

Early in 2009, a 50:50 new-build joint venture of
RWE npower with E.ON UK was established:
Horizon Nuclear Power. Horizon bid for NDA land
alongside old Magnox plants at Oldbury, Wylfa and
Bradwell. Other bidders included EDF Energy and
Vattenfall. The winning bids for Oldbury and Wylfa
were from Horizon. Including bids from EDF and
NuGeneration, the auction raised 387 million for
the NDA28.
By 2025, Horizon planned to have around 6000
MWe of new nuclear capacity in operationm. For its
site at Wylfa in Wales, Horizon was proposing
constructing up to four AP1000 reactors or three

EPR units. For its Oldbury site, it was considering

either three AP1000 reactors or two EPRs. The
planning application for Wylfa was envisaged in
2012, that for Oldbury in 2014. But early in 2012
German-based RWE and E.ON announced that they
wanted to withdraw from Horizon.
Following this there were several expressions of
interest in buying Horizon: first was Rosatom
directly with a view to using VVER-1200 reactors,
then China's State Nuclear Power Technology
Corporation (SNPTC) with Toshiba, which became a
Westinghouse-SNPTC bid with Exelon. An ArevaCGNPC bid was announced, using the EPR, but
then withdrawn, and finally Hitachi Ltd bid with a
view to building the GE-Hitachi Advanced Boiling
Water Reactor (ABWR). Rosatom subsequently said
that it was prepared to build western-design
reactors in UK initially, pending design certification
of VVER types. Meanwhile some work continued on
the two sites.
In October 2012 the 696 million Hitachi bid was
accepted, making Horizon a 100% subsidiary of
Hitachi Ltd. It planned to build two or three of the
1380 MWe (gross) ABWR units at each site, and in
April 2013 applied to ONR for Generic Design
Assessment (GDA), which is expected to take until
the end of 2017. Site works would begin 12-18
months before then, with investment decision and
full construction possibly from 2019. In December
2013 Hitachi said it plans two units at each site. As
with the EPR design, the ONR will work with
overseas regulators on assessment of the UK
ABWR. (Another ABWR unit is planned for Visaginas
in Lithuania, and several have been operating in
Japan.)
In May 2013 Horizon signed an engineering and
design contract with Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy Ltd

(HGNE, 80% owned by Hitachi), which is

progressing the GDA for Wylfa Newydd with ONR.
In 2015 Hitachi incorporated in UK a new company
Hitachi Nuclear Energy Europe Ltd (HNEE) which
will represent the parent company in a proposed
joint venture with Bechtel Management Co and JGC
Corporation (based in Japan) to be set up by 2017
for the engineering, procurement and construction
(EPC) of the project. HGNE will operate under
contract to the new JV. In July 2016 Horizon and
Hitachi signed a technical services contract with
Japan Atomic Power Co to support Horizon in
construction, costing, licensing and commissioning
the ABWR units.
In December 2013 the government signed a
cooperation agreement with Hitachi and Horizon
to promote external financing for the Wylfa
Newydd project under the 2012 UK Guarantee
Scheme for infrastructure, with a view to a
guarantee by the end of 2016 similar to that for
Hinkley Point. Babcock International expressed
some interest in taking equity in the two Horizon
projects.

NuGeneration Moorside
NuGeneration* was set up early in 2009, and
comprised a 50:50 joint venture of Iberdrola (which
owns Scottish Power) with GDF Suez. In December
2013 Iberdrola agreed to sell its 50% share to
Toshiba for 85 million, after having been in
discussion since early in the year regarding
building its Westinghouse AP1000 reactors and
taking equity in the project. Toshiba then bought
one-fifth of GDF Suezs stake at the same price, to
give it majority (60%) ownership for about 102
million, from June 2014. New partners are being
sought, and Kepco is reported to be interested.
* Originally this was owned 37.5% each by Iberdrola and

GDF Suez, and 25% by Scottish & Southern Energy,

though SSE decided to sell out of it in 2011, giving the
other partners 50% each. Before the Toshiba acquisition,
Chinas State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation
(SNPTC) was reported to be interested in a share in
NuGen.

Toshiba and GDF Suez (now Engie) confirmed their

intention of building three AP1000 reactors at
Moorside, with the first unit to be online in 2024. A
site licence application is expected early in 2017,
after the GDA for the AP1000 is approved.
NuGeneration in October 2009 bought the 190 ha
Moorside site on the north side of Sellafield from
the NDA for 70 million. Technology choice is the
1200 MWe Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to
Toshiba ownership, and an investment decision is
expected by the end of 201829.
In December 2014 NuGen signed a cooperation
agreement with the government to gain access to
the 2012 UK guarantee scheme for infrastructure
in order to expedite external project finance for
Moorside. Also it was in discussion with DECC
regarding terms for the contracts for difference
(CfD) for the plant, which need to be agreed before
the 2018 investment decision.
National Grid will need to build 400 kV lines both
north and south, and there are grid connection
agreements for 1600 MWe by October 2023 and
another 1600 MWe by October 2025.

Bradwell
Bradwell in Essex, close to London, is the site of a
decommissioned Magnox plant, with both reactors
shut down in 2002. Under the strategic siting
assessment process it was approved in 2011 as a
site for new build, though no firm proposals have
so far been brought forward. CGN has expressed
interest in it however, and in connection with the
Hinkley Point agreement in October 2015, EDF and

CGN agreed to form a joint venture company to

advance plans for a new plant at Bradwell and seek
regulatory approval through the Generic Design
Assessment (GDA) process for a UK version of the
Chinese-designed Hualong One reactor. CGN is
expected to take a 66.5% share and EDF 33.5% in
the Bradwell B project, and the two companies will
also bring it to a final investment decision.
Power reactors planned and proposed
ProponentSite Locality Type
EDF Energyn Hinkley Point C-1
Somerset EPR
Hinkley Point C-2
EPR
EDF Energyn Sizewell C-1
Suffolk
EPR
Sizewell C-2
EPR
Horizon Wylfa Newydd 1
Wales
ABWR
Horizon Wylfa Newydd 2
Wales
ABWR
Horizon Oldbury B-1
Gloucestershire
ABWR
Horizon Oldbury B-2
Gloucestershire
ABWR
NuGeneration Moorside 1
Cumbria AP1000
NuGeneration Moorside 2
AP1000
NuGeneration Moorside 3
AP1000
China General Nuclear
Bradwell B-1 Essex
Hualong One
China General Nuclear
Bradwell B-2*
Hualong One
Total planned & proposed 13 units *
GE Hitachi
Sellafield Cumbria 2 x PRISM
Candu Energy Sellafield Cumbria 2 x Candu
EC6Capacity
(MWe gross)
Construction start Start-up
167020192026
167020202027
1670?
?
1670?
?
138020192025
138020192025
1380
late 2020s
1380
late 2020s
11352019?
late 2025
1135
2026?
1135
2027?
1150

1150
17,900 MWe
2 x 311
2 x 740

The WNA Reactor Table has two EPRs and two ABWRs as
'planned' (6100 MWe) and nine units (11,800 MWe)
'proposed'. * two units assumed for Bradwell, not
confirmed.The PRISM and EC6 options for Sellafield are
alternatives for Pu disposition.

Small reactors

The 2015 program to "revive the UK's nuclear

expertise" especially through developing small
modular reactors (SMRs) has been accompanied by
expressions of interest from various quarters. The
government plans a competition to identify the
best value SMR design for the UK. The Nuclear
Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (Nuclear
AMRC) is focused on engineering capacity in the
UK.
Since October 2015 NuScale, a 55% Fluor
subsidiary, aims to deploy its 50 MWe SMR in the
UK by the mid-2020s, and seeks partners for this in
addition to Sheffield Forgemasters. In January 2016
National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) confirmed that
the NuScale reactor can run on MOX fuel, and said
that a 12-module NuScale plant with full MOX cores
could consume 100 tonnes of reactor-grade
plutonium in about 40 years, generating 200 TWh
from it. This comment addresses a UK agenda for
plutonium disposal see section below. NuScale
expects to apply for US design certification late in
2016, and to apply for GDA in the UK in a similar
timeframe.
Also in October 2015 Westinghouse submitted an
unsolicited proposal to partner with the UK

government to license and deploy its 225 MW light

water reactor, an integral PWR. The Westinghouse
proposal involves a shared design and
development model under which the company
would contribute its SMR conceptual design and
then partner with UK government and industry to
complete, license and deploy it. This would engage
UK companies in the reactor supply chain such as
Sheffield Forgemasters. In April 2016 Westinghouse
confirmed that the UK had the manufacturing
capability to build its SMRs, and reiterated its
commitment to developing SMR technology in the
UK.
Early in 2016 Rolls-Royce said it had submitted a
detailed design to the government for a 220 MWe
SMR unit (no details yet public).
In June 2016 GE Hitachi said it would be entering
its PRISM fast reactor in the competition. See also
mention of PRISM under Civil plutonium disposition
below.
The Moltex stable salt reactor is another
contender, the 150 MWe fast version of which the
company plans to submit for GDA. Its fuel is
plutonium-239 chloride with minor actinides and
lanthanides, recovered from LWR fuel or from its
'global workhorse reactor'. A 150 MWe pilot module
is envisaged with conventional fuel tubes that runs
on plutonium and uranium chlorides. It will have
increased relevance if the UK government decides
to use fast reactors for plutonium disposition.
Moltex has submitted this and another 40 MWe
thermal version of its molten salt reactor design in
the SMR competition.
In July 2016 a UK parliamentary committee called
for construction of an SMR at the brownfield
Trawsfynydd site in Wales where a Magnox plant is
being decommissioned.

Fuel cycle facilities and materials: front

end
From the outset, the UK has been self-sufficient in
conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication,
reprocessing and waste treatment (see Appendix
1, Nuclear Development in the United Kingdom).
Uranium is imported, as are conversion services
now.
A 6000t/yr conversion plant at the Springfields site
was managed by Westinghouse on a long-term
lease from the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authorityo. Early in 2005, Cameco Corporation
bought ten years of toll conversion services from
2006, at 5000 tU/yr, though the agreement was
terminated at the end of August 2014 and the
plant then shut down finally. Feed was from
Cameco's Blind River refinery in Ontario, Canada,
and the product was sent to Camecos customers.
Enrichment is undertaken by Urenco at Capenhurst
in three centrifuge plants, the oldest dating from
1976, and totaling 1.1 million SWU/yr. Urencos
shares are ultimately held one-third by the UK
government, one-third by the Dutch government
and one-third by the German utilities RWE and
E.ON.
Urenco is building a 7000 t/yr deconversion plant,
or Tails Management Facility, at Capenhurst, with
commissioning expected in 2017p, after cost
overruns and delays. It will treat tails from all three
European Urenco sites: Capenhurst, Almelo in the
Netherlands and Gronau in Germany. Depleted
uranium will then be stored in more chemically
stable form as U3O8.
Fuel fabrication of AGR and PWR fuel is at
Springfields, and other PWR fuel is bought on the
open market. Magnox fuel fabrication, also at
Springfields, ended in May 2008 after 53 years of

production.

Fuel cycle facilities and materials: back

end

Reprocessing activities at Sellafield are undertaken

by Sellafield Ltd on behalf of the NDA. International
Nuclear Services (INS, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the NDA) manages the contracts on behalf of the
NDA. A 1500 t/yr Magnox reprocessing plant which
opened in 1964 is due to close around 2016. The
Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) was
commissioned in 1994 and, as of early 2010, had
treated about 6000 tonnes of used fuel for
overseas and domestic customers. Of this, 2300
tonnes was domestic used AGR fuel. A further 6600
tonnes arising to the end of the AGR operating
lifetimes will need to be treated or stored,
depending on the outcome of a review of used
oxide fuel management strategyq. Less than 700
tonnes of fuel from overseas customers remains to
be reprocessed. In June 2012 the NDA said that
Thorp will operate to 2018, and close after
completing its existing reprocessing contracts,
including those for the AGR fuel. Its capacity is 600
t/yr. The draft NDA business plan to 2018 says it
will continue to reprocess AGR and other oxide fuel
from EDF Energy and overseas.
Sizewell B is running on reprocessed uranium,
including blended-down reprocessed submarine
reactor fuel from MSZ Elektrostal in Russia, part
exchanged for UK reprocessed uranium.
Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication for export has
been at the Sellafield MOX plant (SMP, see section
on Sellafield in Appendix 1, Nuclear Development
in the United Kingdom). In 2010, the NDA and ten
Japanese utilities agreed on a plan to refurbish
SMP, and this work was being undertaken over
three years by Sellafield Ltd, involving a new MOX

fuel fabrication line using Areva technology.

However, in August 2011 the NDA said it had
reassessed the prospects for the plant following
the Fukushima accident, and closed it. About 15
tonnes of reactor-grade plutonium owned by the
Japanese utilities is being held at Sellafield
awaiting incorporation into about 270 tonnes of
MOX fuel, but this may now be done in France or
Japan. Consideration was being given to building a
new MOX plant in the UK to utilize over 100 tonnes
of stored UK plutonium. (MOX fuel costs about five
times as much to fabricate as conventional
uranium oxide fuel, which doubles the total fuel
cost.)

Civil plutonium disposition

A March 2011 report outlined options for using or
otherwise dealing with the UK's civil plutoniumr.
This comprised some 100 tonnes of separated
reactor-grade plutonium in storage that was UKowned, and also the plutonium in 6000 tonnes of
used AGR fuel from UK reactors about half as
much again if separated. Three of four options
involved using the separated plutonium in MOX
fuel, the main question is what to do with the AGR
fuel treat as waste, or reprocess at THORP. The
report suggested that none of the options would be
profitable, but some will have more economic and
resource benefit than others. In essence, the report
showed that it makes sense to produce MOX fuel
from the plutonium. The question for the UK is
whether it wants to offset this with extra savings
and revenues from the potentially expensive return
to the full nuclear fuel cycle that would come with
a refurbishment of THORP and building a new MOX
plant. After a public consultation in 2011 the
government later announced that it preferred a
MOX option for as much of the plutonium as

possible, rather than disposing of it as waste or

continuing indefinite storage.
A novel solution was then proposed by GE-Hitachi:
building two 311 MWe units of their PRISM fast
reactor at Sellafield and operating them initially so
as to bring the material up to the highlyradioactive 'spent fuel standard' of self-protection
and proliferation resistance. The whole stockpile
could be irradiated thus in five years, with some
by-product electricity and the plant would then
proceed to re-use that stored fuel over perhaps 55
years solely for 600 MWe of electricity generation.
GE-H is starting to develop a supply chain in the UK
with Costain, Arup & Poyry to support the proposal
and prepare for UK design certification. In April
2012 an agreement was signed with the National
Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) at Sellafield to
investigate the proposal more closely.* GEH has
launched a web portal in support of its proposal.
1
2

* In November 2011, the NDA wrote to GEH saying that for

its proposal to be credible, it had to:
Demonstrate a disposability assessment for the spent fuel
similar to the disposability assessment in regard to used
MOX, through the usual RWMD processes.
Demonstrate licenceability in some proper way, for
example an assessment by a credible consulting engineer
setting reactor aspects against UK safety assessment
principles and demonstrating licenceability in principle.
Demonstrate that it had a tie-in with a credible
utility/reactor operator, i.e. a utility already established in
the UK market and operating a nuclear plant somewhere
in the world (like RWE, EON, Iberdrola etc.) who was
prepared to own and operate a PRISM reactor.
Demonstrate that the total cost of the implementation
would be around 2.5 billion discounted and no more than
a few hundred million pounds in any one year i.e. about
the same shape as the other options.
Commit to a commercial structure that insulated
government for technology deployment risk.

An alternative solution is proposed by Candu

Energy: building two or four of its EC6 reactors (a
740 MWe modern version of its Candu-6) to burn
MOX fuel with about 2% plutonium (CANMOX). At
about 100 t fuel each per year, this would use 4
t/yr plutonium in twin units. Four units would draw
down the initial inventory in 15 years. The
company notes that the reactors could be fully
built in the UK domestically.
Another alternative put forward in 2016 is the
Moltex stable salt reactor, the fast version of which
runs on plutonium-239 chloride in static fuel tubes.
Early in 2012 the NDA invited expression of
interest in alternatives to simple MOX use,
describing this as "the most credible and
technologically mature option" but adding that it
"remains open" to other ideas should they "offer
better value or less risk for the taxpayer." It said it
wanted to "gather more data on other options" and
that it was talking with the government and third
parties to review "whether alternative technologies
may represent credible options" over a timescale
of about 25 years. In June 2012 PRISM was
shortlisted along with Candus EC6 reactor.
In January 2014 the NDA said that while PRISM and
EC6 were credible options for most of the
inventory, its reference solution was using MOX in
light water reactors. However, it would continue to
evaluate PRISM and EC6 over the next 1-2 years,
as "currently, we believe there is insufficient
understanding of the options to confidently move
into implementation." A multi-track approach
may be best, since a small portion (up to 15%) is
contaminated or in the form of residues or MOX
scraps. NDA also intends to work on regulatory
and licensing aspects with the technology vendors
and UK regulators to "define licensing needs and

understand deployment risks such as fuel

performance demonstration, noting this is a
significant risk area for all options." In July 2014
Iberdrola (owner of Scottish Power utility) signed
an agreement with GE Hitachi for cooperation in
development of the PRISM option for UK plutonium
use, in collaboration with the NDA. In May 2015 GE
Hitachi said it was working closely with NDA on the
PRISM proposal, stressing its Idaho EBRII
provenance. Following a draft in May 2015, the
NDA submitted a detailed report to DECC on the
three options in December 2015. All three options
allow for contaminated and otherwise unsuitable
material to be immobilised in some form of Synroc
by hot isostatic pressing.
It is assumed that GDA would be required for
PRISM or Candu EC6 even if they were deemed to
be non-commercial.
At the end of June 2015 Natural Resources Canada
and the UK DECC signed a memorandum of
understanding on enhancing cooperation in civil
nuclear energy. It calls for increased cooperation
throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, including:
uranium supply; reactor design, construction,
operation and decommissioning; adaptation of
designs to use alternative and advanced fuel
cycles that support the safe and proper disposition
of legacy material. NRCan said: "The MOU will
reinforce work already under way on feasibility
studies related to the disposal of UK plutonium,
and it will provide a framework to assess the
development of power generation based on
alternative nuclear fuels." Candu Energy said that
the signing of the MOU "establishes the means and
processes by which [its CANMOX] project could be
adopted." The MOU has the potential to unlock a
powerful energy source for UK electricity

consumers." GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada,

which is working with Candu Energy to develop the
CANMOX approach, said that the MOU "is a very
positive step in bringing heavy water reactor
technology back to the UK."
Also in 2015 Areva was promoting its Convert
proposal to use the plutonium in about 7000 MOX
fuel assemblies, as conventionally done in France,
where the EDF plants have more than 400 reactoryears' experience in using it, over 29 years. It said
this would save 20,000 tonnes of natural uranium.
In January 2016 National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL)
confirmed that the NuScale 50 MWe small modular
reactor can run on MOX fuel, and said that a 12module NuScale plant with full MOX cores could
consume 100 tonnes of reactor-grade plutonium in
about 40 years, generating 200 TWh from it. Areva
is already involved with fuel manufacture for
NuScale.
At the end of 2013 the plutonium stockpile was
reported as 123 tonnes, including 23 tonnes
foreign-owned (since reduced to 15t by swaps),
and on completion of reprocessing operations
about 2016 it is expected to be 140 tonnes. The
government plans to decide on plutonium use or
disposition about then. After agreement with
Euratom, in mid-2014 the government agreed to
NDA taking ownership of about a tonne of foreign
plutonium stored in UK 800 kg owned by a
Swedish utility and 140 kg owned by a German
research organisation. In 2013 it had similarly
taken over about two tonnes of foreign-owned
plutonium.
In mid-2014 a plan was announced to extract
americium-241 from the ageing plutonium
stockpile. Am-241 is a decay product of plutonium

and can render it too gamma-active to feed

through a MOX plant. The Sellafield MOX Plant
could not handle plutonium more than six years
old, as it then contained more than 3% Am-241.
About 250 kg of old civil plutonium (originally with
about 10% Pu-241 from AGRs or 14% from PWRs)
will yield 10 kg of Am-241, depending on its age
the half-life of Pu-241 is 14 years. Am-241 is used
in most household smoke detectors, and here the
European Space Agency is paying NNL to produce
radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs)
using Am-241 extracted from old plutonium, as
they are less expensive than those using Pu-238,
despite needing shielding.

Radioactive wastes

Most UK radioactive wastes are a legacy of the

pioneering development of nuclear power, rather
than being normal operational wastes arising from
electricity generation though there is a significant
amount of these. Some are from military programs.
Until 1982, some low- and intermediate-level
wastes were disposed of in deep ocean sites. In
1993, the government accepted an international
ban on this.
Solid low-level wastes are disposed of in the 120
ha Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) at Drigg in
Cumbria, near Sellafield, which has operated since
1959. Dounreay* has vaults for 175,000 m3 of
operational and decommissioning low-level wastes
from the site.
* In addition, a shaft used for disposal of assorted lowlevel wastes following the plant closure has given rise to
problems and expense in cleaning it out.

Intermediate-level waste is stored at Sellafield and

other source sites, pending disposal. A new store at
Harwell, Oxfordshire, for 2500 m3 of
decommissioning wastes is planned.

High-level waste (HLW) arising from reprocessing is

vitrified and stored at Sellafields, in stainless steel
canisters in silos. A dry cask storage set-up for
used fuel at Sizewell B was commissioned in April
2016, using Holtec's Hi-Storm system. All HLW is to
be stored for 50 years before disposal, to allow
cooling.
A consultation on regulations relating to wastes
was carried out from March 2010. A Waste Transfer
Pricing Methodology consultation document in the
light of this was issued by the government in
December 2010, setting out how a price will be
determined for the transfer to government of newbuild higher-activity waste and its disposal in the
UK's planned Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
This includes setting a cap on waste transfer price
to provide operators with some price certainty. The
cap will be high perhaps 1100 million per 1350
MWe PWR, which is three times current cost
estimates, and the actual price including
contribution to disposal facility will be set 30
years after the reactor starts operation, not earlier.
Operators will need to make credible and secure
provision for funding the waste transfer. Used fuel
will be priced in /tU, not p/kWh as earlier
proposed, and as common elsewhere.
The NDA has set up a Radioactive Waste
Management Directorate (RWMD) to develop plans
for a deep geological repository for high- and
intermediate-level wastes and evolve into the
entity that builds and operates it. The Geological
Disposal Facility (GDF) is expected to cost around
12 billion undiscountedt from conception, through
operation from about 2040, to closure in 2100. Site
selection was expected to be in around 2025. The
government has invited communities to volunteer
to host the GDF, with three expressions received so

far, representing two areas of Cumbria: Allerdale

and Copeland. The next steps are to undertake a
four-year geological study; surface research lasting
ten years; and finally a 15-year period of
underground research, construction and
commissioning. In these steps the NDA will seek to
find an 11-year saving to enable operation from
2029. However, plans were stalled early in 2013
when Cumbria County Council voted to halt the
project.
In July 2014 the government published a white
paper outlining its plans for a two-year consultation
and then establishment of the GDF. The white
paper sets out a number of actions which
government and the developer RWM Ltd will carry
out over the initial two years of the new process.
The aim is to provide interested local communities
with more information and greater clarity about the
nature of a development. When this is complete,
formal discussions can begin probably around
2016.
The government is planning for the GDF to
accommodate waste from new build as well as
legacy waste (which includes committed waste
from existing operational facilities and those
undergoing decommissioning). Operators of new
plants would be charged a fixed unit price for
disposal of intermediate-level wastes and used fuel
in the GDF (see section above on Funded
decommissioning programme). See also section on
Geological disposal facility in Appendix 1, Nuclear
Development in the United Kingdom.
Four consortia bid to take over the
decommissioning of ten Magnox power plants*
with 22 reactors and two nuclear research facilities
at Harwell and Winfrith as the private sector
parent body organisation (PBO) for the 14-year

task. NDA commenced dialogue with them in

January 2013 and in March 2014 announced that a
joint venture between Cavendish Nuclear and Fluor
Corporation had been selected as preferred bidder.
The companies Magnox Ltd and Research Sites
Restoration Ltd (RSRL) managed all the 12 sites as
licensees, and the transition to Cavendish Fluor
Partnership (CFP) was completed in September
2014. CFP became the parent body organisation for
Magnox and RSRL. In April 2015 Magnox Ltd took
over the two RSRL sites in a merger. Cavendish
Nuclear is a subsidiary of Babcock
International, which expected the contract value to
be about 4.2 billion.
* The 11th is Calder Hall, on the Sellafield site.

In 2016 the last of the 68 tonnes of sodium and

potassium primary coolant was removed from the
Dounreay Fast Reactor which is being
decommissioned. This was reacted with water in
inert atmosphere and the hydroxide was subject to
ion exchange to remove radionuclides. About 1 PBq
of Cs-137 was removed and stored as ILW.
The clean-up of legacy nuclear sites is estimated to
cost 117 billion over 120 years. The estimate is
based on the expected costs of decommissioning,
dismantling and demolishing the buildings,
managing and disposing of all waste, and
remediation of land. Decommissioning work is
carried out by site licence companies, working for
the NDA. Costs are currently around 3 billion
annually. Of this, about two-thirds is met by the
government and the remainder from revenue
earned through the NDA's commercial activities.

Regulation and safety

The principal regulating provision in the UK is the

Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which governs the
construction and safe operation of nuclear plants.

This is administered by the Health and Safety

Executive (HSE)u, which regulates the safety of all
nuclear installations independently of government
departments, and licenses them. Under HSE,
nuclear safety regulation is carried out by the
Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR); nuclear
security regulation is carried out by the Office for
Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS); and nuclear
safeguards functions are carried out by the UK
Safeguards Office (UKSO)u. Regulatory
responsibility for the transport of radioactive
materials moved from the Department for
Transport to ONR in October 2011. The ONR
became an independent public corporation in April
2014, no longer part of the civil service.
The Nuclear Installations Act is supported by the
Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, which require
employers to keep radiation exposure of workers
and the public as low as practicable and within
specified limits. The Nuclear Generating Stations
(Security) Regulations 1996 and the Radioactive
Material (Road Transport) Act 1991 are also
relevant. Waste management and discharges to
the environment are regulated by the Radioactive
Substances Act 1993.
Regarding nuclear third party liability, in 1994 the
limit was increased to 140 million for each major
installation, so that the operator is liable for claims
up to this amount and must insure accordingly. The
government is running a public consultation
(finishing at the end of April 2011) that would
increase the liability to 1.2 billion (1 billion), in
line with amendments agreed in 2004 to the Paris
Convention on nuclear third party liability and
Brussels Supplementary Convention34.

Public opinion and industry support

In the light of developments since 2006, public

opinion in UK has remained positive regarding

nuclear power, despite the Fukushima accident. Of
more significance is that there is strong political
support across all three main parties.
In July 2012 a YouGov survey found that 63% of
Britons supported the use of nuclear power, and
only 22% opposed building new plants on
brownfield sites. Twice as many supported
electricity market reform as opposed it (35% and
18% respectively) and interest in global warming
was low 59% compared with 72% in 2008.
A YouGov survey in October 2012 found that 40%
of the 1734 people polled felt that the UK
government should use more nuclear power than
at present, up from 35% in November 2011.
Maintaining current levels was preferred by 21%,
while 20% felt that there should be less nuclear
power than at present (down from 27% in 2011).
54% of men, and only 26% of women, felt that
there should be more nuclear. Of women, 23%
supported the status quo, 25% called for a
reduction in nuclear and 25% were unsure. Apart
from nuclear, 72% were in favour of increasing
solar provision, 55% in favour of more wind farms,
and 45% wanted less coal-fired power.
A UK Energy Research Centre report in October
2013 showed similar proportions of people now
supporting (32%) and opposing (29%) the use of
nuclear power, compared with 26% (supporting)
and 37% (opposing) in 2005. While a similar
number of people want to see nuclear continue at
current levels or expand it, fewer people now want
to see nuclear power phased out or shut down
(50% in 2005, 40% in 2013). Concern over nuclear
power in Britain has dropped from 58% in 2005
and 54% in 2010 to 47% in 2013 post Fukushima.
A DECC survey of over 2000 people in March 2014

showed that 42% supported nuclear power (up

from 38% in Sept 2012) and 20% opposed it (down
from 27%). Support for renewables was stronger,
and 59% said they would be prepared to have a
large-scale renewables development in their area.
Concern over energy security and climate change
had increased since 2012.
The March 2016 DECC survey (N=2105) showed
38% support for nuclear power and 23% against,
with 36% neutral. Those with an income over
50,000 (53%), male (49%), in social grades AB
(47%), and aged over 65 (44%) were the most
likely to support the use of nuclear energy.
Regarding nuclear being a reliable source, 49%
agreed and 14% disagreed. There was less strong
support for nuclear being affordable (37%), safe
(34%) and helpful in tackling climate change
(35%). This survey also asked about shale gas
fracking, and found that half neither supported nor
opposed, mostly due to not knowing enough about
it, 31% were opposed and 19% supported.
A YouGov poll of over 2000 people in November
2014 showed 45% support for building new nuclear
power capacity, and more than two-thirds of those
did so due to concern about UK energy security.
Reliability of supply and job creation and
investment also rated highly. Of the 20% opposing
new reactors, 82% did so due to lack of knowledge
regarding waste management, and 39% mentioned
concern about public safety (down from 26% in
2012). One-third of respondents said they were
aware of how the industry currently deals with
waste, but only 21% knew about future plans for
waste disposal.
A 2015 survey by the UK's Institution of Mechanical
Engineers found that 56% of the public support the
country's continued use of nuclear power,

compared with just 19% who do not, with 25%

unsure. Of those who support nuclear power, 82%
said that this is because it will "help keep the lights
on," 56% because it would provide jobs, and 54%
because it would boost the economy. The main
concerns for those opposing nuclear power were
that it is too dangerous (77%), too damaging for
the environment (76%), while just 27% said that it
was because it was too expensive.

Industry support
In March 2013 the government published a 90page industrial strategy document entitled The
UK's Nuclear Future which sets out the
government's "clear expectation that nuclear will
play a significant role in the UK energy mix in the
future" and outlines the its plans to align the UK as
a leading civil nuclear energy nation. It covers the
nuclear energy industry in its entirety,
encompassing new build, waste management and
decommissioning, fuel cycle services, and
operations and maintenance. More than 45
million funding was provided to related initiatives.
In July 2013 the Department of Energy & Climate
Change (DECC) announced financial incentives for
communities in England hosting nuclear power
plants, wind farms or shale gas development. It
said that local governments would receive a 50%
share of business taxes from a new plant for the
first ten years of operation, and then 1000 per
MWe of installed capacity annually for a further 30
years. Hence for Hinkley Point this could amount to
128 million over 40 years. For wind farms, 5000
per MWe installed is offered, but over 15-20
years. The 2015 election result is likely to mean no
further subsidies for onshore wind, and greater
development of shale gas.
In October 2015 the Royal Academy of Engineering

(RAE) published a report entitled A Critical Time for

UK Energy Policy which details the actions
needed now to create a secure and affordable lowcarbon energy system for 2030 and beyond. It said
that a fundamental restructuring of the whole
energy system is needed if the UK is to meet the
so-called energy 'trilemma' of affordability, security
and decarbonisation and that "time is rapidly
running out to make the crucial planning decisions
and secure investment" to ensure the UK has a
secure energy system which meets its emissions
targets. "As a secure, base-load source of lowcarbon electricity, nuclear power is essential," and
anything much less than 15 GWe by 2030 would be
a concern.

Research & development

Though the UK was a pioneer of nuclear power
development, designing the Magnox and then AGR
types along with fuels for them, as well as fast
neutron reactors, since the 1980s there has been
no significant fuel cycle R&D or reactor design
undertaken in the country.
This neglect seems set to change with the
announcement in November 2015 of a 250 million
nuclear R&D programme to "revive the UK's
nuclear expertise" especially through developing
small modular reactors (SMRs) and position the
country as "a global leader in innovative nuclear
technologies." Funding is through the Department
of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), whose
other functions are being trimmed. "The
government's doubling of investment in DECC's
innovation programme will help position the UK as
an international leader in small modular nuclear
reactors, and deliver commitments on seed
funding for promising new renewable energy
technologies and smart grids," and is part of

government plans to "prioritize energy security,

whilst making reforms to meet our climate goals at
lower cost." This will include a competition to
identify the best value SMR design for the UK,
paving the way towards building one of the world's
first new-generation SMRs in the country in the
2020s. Plans for an SMR in the UK in the 2020s
follows the December 2014 feasibility report by a
consortium led by National Nuclear Laboratory
(NNL) into the potential impact of SMR technology
on the UK energy sector and the UK nuclear supply
chain.
Of 36 research and experimental reactors built and
operated, only one remains operational, Rolls
Royces tiny Neptune critical assembly. Some of
the best-known past reactors indicating the
breadth of R&D include the 120 MWt Windscale
AGR, the 65 MWt Dounreay fast reactor, two 26
MWt heavy water reactors, Pluto and Dido, and the
20 MWt Dragon high-temperature reactor. The
Dounreay fast reactor led to the much larger
Protoype Fast Reactor which ran for 20 years but
was not followed through commercially.
In connection with the governments 2 billion loan
guarantee for the Hinkley Point C project, it also
announced that the UK and China will co-fund a
50 million "cutting-edge" nuclear research centre,
to be headquartered in the UK. This Joint Research
and Innovation Centre (JRIC) is likely to be in
Cumbria, as flagship of a new regional
collaboration between Cumbria and Sichuan
province. It will be run by the National Nuclear
Laboratory (NNL) in conjunction with CNNC, and
linking with other UK nuclear research centres and
universities. NNL said: The work of the centre will
help to optimise the nuclear power generations
systems we have operating today, as well as

working to develop the reactors and fuel cycles

which we will deploy in future and better ways of
dealing safely with nuclear waste.
The UK's R&D programme is covered in more detail
in Appendix 1, Nuclear Development in the United
Kingdom.

Non-proliferation

The UK is a nuclear weapons state, party to the

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which it
ratified in 1968 and under which a safeguards
agreement has been in force since 1972. The
Additional Protocol in relation to this was signed in
1998. International Atomic Energy Agency
safeguards are applied on all civil nuclear
activities. (The UK undertook 45 nuclear weapons
tests over 1952-91 most in the 1950s in
Australia).

Further Information
Notes
a. The Labour government of 1997-2010 and
nuclear policy
Over the three parliamentary terms from 1997 to
2010 that the Labour party was in office, the
government went from opposing new nuclear
power plants to being in favour of them. The
February 2003 energy white paper, Our energy
future creating a low carbon economy1, stated
that the government had no current plans to
expand the use of nuclear power. According to this
white paper, the "current economics" of nuclear
power "make new nuclear build an unattractive
option and there are important issues of nuclear
waste to be resolved." The government therefore
did not propose to support new nuclear build,
although it added: "But we will keep the option

open." The white paper went on to promise that,

before any decision to proceed with new nuclear
build was made, "there will need to be the fullest
public consultation and the publication of a further
white paper setting out our proposals." Alongside
the rejection of new nuclear build and without any
hint of irony, the white paper set out the
government's "ambition" to cut greenhouse gases
by around 60% by 2050 (compared with 1990
levels).
By 2006, government policy on nuclear had
completely changed, with the report of its energy
policy review stating: "We have concluded that
new nuclear power stations would make a
significant contribution to meeting our energy
policy goals."2 However, this conclusion was
successfully challenged in the High Court by
Greenpeace on the basis that the promise made in
the 2003 white paper for "the fullest public
consultation" had not been kept. In his decision of
February 2007, Mr. Justice Sullivan concluded:
"There was a breach of the claimant's legitimate
expectation to fullest public consultation; that the
consultation process was procedurally unfair; and
that therefore the decision in the Energy Review
that nuclear new build 'has a role to play...' was
unlawful."3
Following the High Court decision, in May 2007 the
government's Department for Trade and Industry
(DTI) published a new white paper, titled Meeting
the Energy Challenge4 in which the government
stated its "preliminary view that it is in the public
interest to give the private sector the option of
investing in new nuclear power stations." Alongside
the white paper, a new consultation on the future
of nuclear power, as well as parallel technical
consultations on a justification process and siting,

was launched5. This extensive consultation process

led to the 10 January 2008 publication of Meeting
the Energy Challenge A White Paper on Nuclear
Power, the foreword (by Prime Minister Gordon
Brown) of which stated: "The electricity industry
should, from now on be allowed to build and
operate new nuclear power stations."6 In stark
contrast to the 2003 energy white paper, the
foreword also acknowledged: "Nuclear power can
and will make a real contribution to meeting our
commitments to limit damaging climate change."
The target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
was increased to 80% by 2050 (compared with
1990 levels) and made legally binding in the
Climate Change Act 2008, which entered into force
in November 2008.7 The Act also provides for a
reduction of 34% in greenhouse gas emissions by
2020.
The legally binding targets for emissions reductions
set out in the Climate Change Act have put nuclear
at the centre of national energy strategy. In July
2009, the government set out its policy on nuclear
power in a document titled The Road to 2010:
Addressing the nuclear question in the twenty first
century8. It states that nuclear power is "an
essential part of any global solution to the related
and serious challenges of climate change and
energy security." Furthermore, the document
continues: "Nuclear energy is therefore vital to the
challenges of sustaining global growth, and
tackling poverty." [Back]
b. Legal power to consent onshore electricity
generating stations with a capacity of over 50 MWe
is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Given
that the Scottish Government "is clear that new
nuclear power is not wanted or needed in
Scotland,"9 this effectively means that no new

nuclear plants are likely to be built in Scotland. The

main objective of the Scottish Government's
energy policy is "to progressively increase the
generation of renewable and clean energy, to
migrate Scotland away from a dependence on
nuclear energy."9 [Back]
c. The Conservative-led coalition government is
expected to introduce legislation to abolish the
Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in late
2010. The IPC would be replaced with a Major
Infrastructure Planning Unit within the Planning
Inspectorate to provide advice on new
infrastructure projects to Ministers10. [Back]
d. The 11 sites nominated for the strategic siting
assessment (SSA) process were: Bradwell,
Braystones, Dungeness, Hartlepool, Hinkley Point,
Heysham, Kirksanton, Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell
and Wylfa. (Braystones and Kirksanton are
greenfield sites near Sellafield.) The government
came to the preliminary conclusion that all of the
the nominated sites except Dungeness are
potentially suitable for new nuclear power stations
by the end of 2025. The government also
commissioned Atkins Ltd to identify other possible
sites worthy of further consideration13. The
government's preliminary conclusion for the three
alternative sites identified in this study Druridge
Bay in Northumberland, Kingsnorth in Kent and
Owston Ferry in South Yorkshire was that they are
not potentially suitable for the deployment of new
nuclear power stations by the end of 2025. The
draft Nuclear National Policy Statement (Nuclear
NPS) therefore listed ten potentially suitable sites
for new nuclear plants to be built by 2025. A
consultation on this draft Nuclear NPS, along with
five other draft National Policy Statements for
energy infrastructure, ran from November 2009 to

February 2010.14
Information on the draft Nuclear NPS can be found
on the website for the Consultation on draft
National Policy Statements for Energy
Infrastructure
(www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk) [Back]
e. A consultation on six draft National Policy
Statements for energy infrastructure, including the
draft Nuclear NPS, ran from November 2009 to
February 2010. A formal response, together with
the final National Policy Statements, had been
expected later in 2010 but, following the May 2010
general election, the new coalition government
decided to make changes to the Appraisals of
Sustainability of the NPSs. (An Appraisal of
Sustainability assesses the environmental, social
and economic impacts of implementing a policy,
and includes comparison with reasonable
alternatives to the preferred policy.) As the draft
NPSs were revised, the government considered it
necessary to launch a further consultation on
them15. This consultation16 commenced in October
2010 and the government presented the finalised
statements to Parliament for ratification in June
2011. (Along with the decision to abolish the
Infrastructure Planning Commission see Note c
above the new coalition government said it would
ensure that NPSs are to be ratified by Parliament.)
[Back]
f. At the end of June 2006, the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) published an expert report to the
Governments 2006 energy policy review (see Note
a above). The report was informed by responses
received between March and April 2006 to a
discussion document, HSE review of the prelicensing process for potential new build of nuclear
power stations, posted on the HSE website. The

HSE's response to The Energy Review and

associated documents can be found on the HSE
website (www.hse.gov.uk). [Back]
g. Information on the GDA process can be found on
the New nuclear power stations section of the HSE
website (www.hse.gov.uk). [Back]
h. The government's proposals for the
management and disposal of nuclear wastes
arising from future new plants18 were published in
February 2008 alongside the Energy Bill 2008,
which became the Energy Act 2008 when it
received Royal Assent in November 2008. [Back]
i. A consultation on regulations relating to FDPs,
including measures to verify and define the
content of an FDP, was carried out between March
and June 2010.19 A further FDP consultation
document in the light of this was issued by the
government in December 2010.20. Running
alongside these consultations have been related
consultations on determining a price for the
transfer to government of new-build higher-activity
waste and its disposal21. [Back]
j. Soon after the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan
white paper was published, the government set out
its policy to "develop a more coherent global
strategy to harness peaceful nuclear power, and to
establish the conditions where we can consider a
world free of nuclear weapons" in a document
titled The Road to 2010: Addressing the nuclear
question in the twenty first century (see Reference
8 below). [Back]
k. In October 2008, Malcolm Wicks MP, the then
Special Representative on International Energy
Issues, was asked to carry out an independent
review of international energy security and how
developments internationally were likely to affect
the UKs energy security in the coming decades. In

his August 2009 report, Energy Security: A national

challenge in a changing world25, he stated: "A
range between, say, 35-40 per cent of electricity
from nuclear could be a sensible aspiration,
beyond 2030." In its response to Wicks' report25,
the government said it considered it unnecessary
to set a target or 'aspiration'. However, the
government reiterated the statement made in the
Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power
Generation referring to new capacity required by
2025: "New nuclear power should be free to
contribute as much as possible towards meeting
the need for 25 GW of new non-renewable
capacity."26 (The 25 GW figure is based on the
assumption that 60 GWe of net new capacity is
required by 2025, of which 35 GWe could come
from renewables, and the remaining 25 GWe
coming from conventional generation capacity.)
[Back]
l. The 2002 white paper, Managing the Nuclear
Legacy a Strategy for Action27, posed the
question: Is the creation of the Liabilities
Management Authority a backdoor route to more
nuclear power? (At the time, the Liabilities
Management Authority was the name given then
to the organization that was to become the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority.) To this, the answer
given was: No. There is no direct link between the
creation of the Liabilities Management Authority
and any future proposals for new nuclear capacity.
The LMA will focus on dealing with the
consequences of the past. Furthermore, the
Energy Act 2004 states that the principal function
of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is
decommissioning (as well as operation of
installations pending their decommissioning).
[Back]

m. The Horizon Nuclear Power Horizon Nuclear

Power website (www.horizonnuclearpower.com)
contains information on the joint venture's sites at
Wylfa and Oldbury. [Back]
n. British Energy Group delisted from the London
Stock Exchange in February 2009 following its
acquisition by EDF and has been integrated into
the EDF Energy subsidiary. In addition to its plans
at Hinkley Point and Sizewell, EDF Energy has grid
connection agreements for Bradwell, Dungeness,
and Heysham about 1650 MWe each. However, in
2012 EDF cancelled the agreement for Heysham
grid connection.
Bradwell
Under an agreement with the UK government, if
both Hinkley Point and Sizewell are included in the
Nuclear National Policy Statement and planning
consent is obtained for two EPR units at Sizewell,
then the potential development land at Bradwell
consisting of land already owned by British Energy
(prior to its acquisition by EDF) and land acquired
from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority at
auction will have to be sold. It is therefore
unlikely that EDF Energy will build a new nuclear
plant at Bradwell. In 2015 China General Nuclear
Power Group (CGN) said it intended to apply in
2016 for GDA for the 1150 MWe Hualong One
reactor design, with a view to building it at
Bradwell.
Dungeness
One of the conditions imposed by the European
Commission regarding the acquisition of British
Energy by EDF is that EDF is required to dispose of
potential development land at either Dungeness or
Heysham30. Expressions of interest were invited in
May 2009 but no agreement has been reached to
date. However, since Dungeness is unlikely to be

included in the National Nuclear Policy Statement

(see section on Strategic siting assessment), new
nuclear deployment at Dungeness is highly
unlikely.
Heysham
As noted in the paragraph above on Dungeness,
EDF is required to dispose of potential
development land at either Dungeness or
Heysham, and expressions of interest were invited
in May 2009. Both EDF and Iberdrola sent letters of
support for the nomination of Heysham to be
included as a suitable site within the Nuclear
National Policy Statement. Whereas EDF Energy
estimates that 2022 is a feasible early deployment
date for commissioning of a new unit, Iberdrola
considers 2019/2020 possible, with potentially an
additional unit following two years later.
[Back]
o. When the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA) took ownership of the Springfields site on 1
April 2005, BNFL subsidiary Westinghouse
continued with the management and operation
(M&O) of the site through its Uranium Asset
Management Ltd (UAM) business. This
arrangement continued with the sale of
Westinghouse to Toshiba. The M&O contract
expired at the end of March 2010 and, from April
2010, Westinghouse leased the site on a long-term
basis from the NDA. Responsibility for the
commercial fuel manufacturing business and the
workforce was transferred to Westinghouse. At the
same time, UAM was replaced by a 60:40 ToshibaWestinghouse joint venture, Advance Uranium
Asset Management Ltd. [Back]
p. Tails from Capenhurst have been sent to Tenex
in Russia since the mid-1990s for re-enrichment.
The product at about 0.7% U-235 was returned to

Urenco, the tails from that process remaining in

Russia, and are considered a resource for future
fast reactors there. This arrangement concluded at
the end of 2009. [Back]
q. Earlier, it had been planned to operate Thorp
until 2011 to meet contractual commitments for
AGR and overseas LWR fuel. However, following the
April 2005 feed clarification cell event (see section
on Sellafield in Appendix 1, Nuclear Development
in the United Kingdom) and a subsequent period
offline, Thorp has since been operating on reduced
capacity due to constraints over evaporator
capacity. A review of the strategy for the
management of used oxide fuel is underway31, the
outcome of which will affect the projected closure
date for Thorp. [Back]
r. The default position, as outlined in the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA) document NDA
Plutonium Topic Strategy Credible Options
Summary32, is as follows: "Plutonium of which
100 tonnes is located at Sellafield and two tonnes
at Dounreay is treated as a zero value asset. The
default plan is to store the material until 2070 at
Dounreay and until 2120 at Sellafield."
In May 2010, a plutonium storage facility was
completed after five years construction. It is the
Sellafield Product and Residues Store, with 100year design life, and all plutonium and plutonium
residues at Sellafield will eventually be
consolidated there. [Back]
s. By mid-2009, the Sellafield vitrification plant had
produced its 5000th canister of vitrified high-level
waste, representing 3000 m3 of liquor reduced to
750 m3 of glass. The plant fills about 400 canisters
per year, each about 1.2m high. Some 1850
canisters of vitrified waste will be returned to
overseas customers from 2010 under the Vitrified

Residue Returns (VRR) program. This will take

about ten years to complete. [Back]
t. The government plans for waste from new
nuclear build to be disposed of alongside NDAowned waste in the planned Geological Disposal
Facility (GDF). The NDA estimates that the total
undiscounted cost of the GDF will come to 11,790
million. Of this, the NDA estimates that its share of
the GDF would come to 10,493 million
(undiscounted). A further 2 billion undiscounted
would be required if existing stocks of separated
plutonium and uranium were required to be
disposed of33. Disposal costs for waste arising from
new nuclear plants are expected to be borne by
the waste producers.
More detailed figures on the total cost of the
planned GDF are given in the Department of
Energy & Climate Change's December 2010
Consultation on an updated Waste Transfer Pricing
Methodology for the disposal of higher activity
waste from new nuclear power stations (see
Reference 21 below). This quotes NDA estimates of
the total fixed costs of the GDF as 4401 million
and total variable costs for legacy and committed
waste of 7751.6 million. The consultation
document estimates that the total variable costs
for the disposal of new build waste (based on a
"generic" 1350 MWe PWR) would be 217.2 million
per reactor. Operators of new plants would also
contribute towards the fixed costs of the GDF. The
consultation document estimates that this
contribution towards the fixed costs of the GDF
would come to 132.9 million per reactor including
a financing charge. (Costs are given in September
2008 money values.) [Back]
u. The UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
comprises the Office for NUclear Regulation (ONR)

www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear formerly the Nuclear

Installations Inspectorate (NII), the Office for Civil
Nuclear Security (OCNS) and the UK Safeguards
Office (UKSO). The ONR is the nuclear safety
regulator for the civil and defence related nuclear
sites in the UK. The OCNS is the security regulator
for the UKs civil nuclear industry, including both
on site and the security of sensitive nuclear
material in transit. The UKSO oversees the
application of international safeguards measures in
the UK.
The OCNS and the UKSO formerly came under the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) but in April
2007, the security activities of the OCNS and
operational safeguards work of UKSO transferred
from the DTI to the HSE. At that time, the Nuclear
Safety Directorate became the Nuclear Directorate,
which disappeared in 2011 when ONR was created.
In addition, the Radioactive Materials Transport
Team (RMTT), in the Dangerous Goods Division of
the Department for Transport (DfT), is the regulator
for the safety of the transport of radioactive
material (including nuclear material) by road and
rail. The Transport Security and Contingencies
Directorate (TRANSEC) of the DfT is the regulator
for the security of the transport of non-nuclear
radioactive material by road and rail. [Back]

References
1. Energy white paper, Our energy future creating
a low carbon economy, Cm 5761, Department of
Trade and Industry (February 2003) [Back]
2. The Energy Challenge, Energy Review Report
2006, Cm 6887, Department of Trade and Industry
(July 2006) [Back]
3. Greenpeace Ltd., R (on the application of) v
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, [2007]
EWHC 311 (Admin) (15 February 2007) [Back]

4. Meeting the Energy Challenge, A White Paper on

Energy, Cm 7124, Department of Trade and
Industry (May 2007) [Back]
5. The Future of Nuclear Power the role of nuclear
power in a low carbon UK economy, Consultation
Document, Department of Trade and Industry (May
2007), published on The future of nuclear power:
the role of nuclear power in a low carbon UK
economy consultation website [Back]
6. Meeting the Energy Challenge A White Paper
on Nuclear Power, Cm 7296, Department for
Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (January
2008), published on the Nuclear white paper 2008:
'Meeting the energy challenge' website [Back]
7. See the Department of Energy & Climate
Change website on the Climate Change Act 2008
[Back]
8. The Road to 2010: Addressing the nuclear
question in the twenty first century, Cm 7675,
Cabinet Office (July 2009) [Back]
9. Energy Policy: An Overview, The Scottish
Government (September 2008) [Back]
10. Major infrastructure stays on fast-track as
planning quango closes, Department of
Communities and Local Government news release
(29 June 2010) [Back]
11. Towards a Nuclear National Policy Statement:
Consultation on the Strategic Siting Assessment
Process and Siting Criteria for New Nuclear Power
Stations in the UK, Department for Business,
Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (July 2008) [Back]
12. Towards a Nuclear National Policy Statement:
Government response to consultations on the
Strategic Siting Assessment process and siting
criteria for new nuclear power stations in the UK;
and to the study on the potential environmental
and sustainability effects of applying the criteria,

Office for Nuclear Development, Department of

Energy & Climate Change, URN 09/581 (January
2009) [Back]
13. A consideration of alternative sites to those
nominated as part of the Governments Strategic
Siting Assessment process for new nuclear power
stations, Prepared by Atkins for the Department of
Energy & Climate Change (November 2009) [Back]
14. Consultation on draft National Policy
Statements for Energy Infrastructure, Department
of Energy & Climate Change (November 2009);
Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power
Generation (EN-6), Presented to Parliament
pursuant to section 5(9b) of the Planning Act 2008,
Department of Energy & Climate Change
(November 2009) [Back]
15. Consultation on draft national policy
statements for energy, Department of Energy &
Climate Change press release (15 July 2010) [Back]
16. Consultation on revised draft National Policy
Statements for Energy Infrastructure, Planning for
new energy infrastructure, Department of Energy &
Climate Change (October 2010), available on the
website for the Consultation on the revised draft
National Policy Statements for Energy
Infrastructure on the Department of Energy &
Climate Change website (www.decc.gov.uk) [Back]
18. The Consultation on Funded Decommissioning
Programme Guidance for New Nuclear Power
Stations, Department for Business, Enterprise &
Regulatory Reform (February 2008) and The
Government Response to the Consultation on
Funded Decommissioning Programme Guidance for
New Nuclear Power Stations, Office for Nuclear
Development, Department for Business, Enterprise
& Regulatory Reform (September 2008) are
available on the website for the Consultation on

funded decommissioning programme guidance for

new nuclear power stations [Back]
19. Consultation on The Financing of Nuclear
Decommissioning and Waste Handling Regulations,
Department of Energy & Climate Change (March
2010), available on the website for the
Consultation on funded decommissioning
programme guidance for new nuclear power
stations on the Department of Energy & Climate
Change website (www.decc.gov.uk) [Back]
20. Consultation on revised Funded
Decommissioning Programme Guidance for New
Nuclear Power Stations, Department of Energy &
Climate Change (December 2010), available on the
website for the Consultation on revised Funded
Decommissioning Programme Guidance for new
nuclear power stations on the Department of
Energy & Climate Change website
(www.decc.gov.uk) [Back]
21. Consultation on a Methodology to Determine a
Fixed Unit Price for Waste Disposal and Updated
Cost Estimates for Nuclear Decommissioning,
Waste Management and Waste Disposal,
Department of Energy & Climate Change (March
2010), available on the website for the
Consultation on a methodology for determining a
Fixed Unit Price for waste disposal and updated
cost estimates for nuclear decommissioning, waste
management and waste disposal on the
Department of Energy & Climate Change website
(www.decc.gov.uk).
Consultation on an updated Waste Transfer Pricing
Methodology for the disposal of higher activity
waste from new nuclear power stations,
Department of Energy & Climate Change
(December 2010), available on the website for the
Consultation on an updated Waste Transfer Pricing

Methodology for the disposal of higher activity

waste from new nuclear power stations on the
Department of Energy & Climate Change website
(www.decc.gov.uk). [Back]
22. The Energy Challenge, Energy Review Report
2006, Cm 6887, Department of Trade and Industry
(July 2006) [Back]
23. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National
strategy for climate and energy, HM Government
(July 2009) is published on The UK Low Carbon
Transition Plan website on the Department of
Energy & Climate Change website
(www.decc.gov.uk) [Back]
24. The Coalition: our programme for government,
HM Government (May 2010) [Back]
25. The August 2009 report by Malcolm Wicks,
Energy Security: A national challenge in a changing
world and the Government Response to Malcolm
Wickss Review of International Energy Security,
Energy Security: A national challenge in a
changing world, Department of Energy & Climate
Change (April 2010), are available on the Energy
Security: A national challenge in a changing world
website on the Department of Energy & Climate
Change website (www.decc.gov.uk) [Back]
26. Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear
Power Generation (EN-6), Presented to Parliament
pursuant to section 5(9b) of the Planning Act 2008,
Department of Energy & Climate Change
(November 2009) [Back]
27. Managing the Nuclear Legacy A strategy for
action, Department for Trade and Industry (July
2002) [Back]
28. Winning bidders in NDA land auction
announced, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
news release (29 April 2009) [Back]
29. GDF Suez, Iberdrola And Scottish And Southern

Energy To Acquire Site From Nuclear

Decommissioning Authority, ScottishPower press
release (28 October 2009); Sellafield land sale
agreed, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority news
release (28 October 2009); NuGen news release (2
December 2014). [Back]
30. Case No COMP/M.5224 - EDF / BRITISH
ENERGY, Eur-Lex document number 32008M5224,
European Commission (22 December 2008) [Back]
31. Oxide Fuel Strategy, Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority news release (16 March 2010) and Oxide
Fuel Topic Strategy discussion paper, Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (March 2010) [Back]
32. NDA Plutonium Topic Strategy Credible
Options Summary, Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (30 January 2009) [Back]
33. Geological Disposal: Steps towards
implementation, NDA Report no. NDA/RWMD/013,
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (March 2010)
[Back]
34. Implementation of changes to the Paris and
Brussels Conventions on nuclear third party
liability: a public consultation, Department of
Energy & Climate Change (January 2011), available
on the website for Implementation of changes to
the Paris and Brussels Conventions on nuclear third
party liability: a public consultation on the
Department of Energy & Climate Change website
(www.decc.gov.uk) [Back]
NDA, January 2014: Progress-on-approaches-to-themanagement-of-separated-plutonium-positionpaper-January-2014.pdf

Nuclear Development in
the United Kingdom
Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom

Appendix 1

(Updated January 2016)

British scientists were preeminent in the
development of nuclear energy through to the
early 1940s. This work was picked up again after
the Second World War and while the USA was
initially focused on reactors for marine propulsion,
the world's first commercial-scale nuclear power
reactor started up in the UK in 1956.
A fleet of 26 Magnox power reactors was built,
followed later by 14 advanced gas-cooled reactors
(AGRs), and finally a single PWR at Sizewell B.
Plans for a new era of nuclear power are now in
place and described in the main information page
on Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom.

Beginning of UK civil nuclear power

Following the Second World War, nuclear research
in the UK was mainly focused on defence-related
applicationsa. The country's first nuclear reactors
were built at the Atomic Energy Research
Establishment (AERE) at Harwell in Oxfordshire,
which was formed at the beginning of 1946 under
the UK's Ministry of Supply. The first reactor at
AERE the 3 kWth air-cooled graphite-moderated
GLEEP (Graphite Low Energy Experimental Pile)
commenced operation in August 1947. This was
followed by the commissioning in 1948 of the first
large reactor outside the USA, the 6 MWth British
Experimental Pile '0' (BEPO). The reactor
demonstrated the viability of commercial power
reactors and was a forerunner of the Windscale
Piles1.
During 1947, the site of the former Sellafield
ordnance factory renamed Windscaleb was
announced as a new atomic energy site, and
construction activities on the two Windscale Piles
commenced. Fuel for the Piles was produced at the

Springfields nuclear fuel manufacturing facility in

Preston, established by the Ministry of Supply in
1946. Piles No 1 and 2 were completed in 1950 and
1951, respectively.
In 1953, following the government announcement
that the country would begin a civil nuclear power
program, the Ministry of Supply commenced
construction on the first nuclear power reactors at
Calder Hall on the Windscale site. The next year,
the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 created the
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA),
which took on the responsibility for the UK's
nuclear energy program. As well as to provide
nuclear material for the country's nuclear defence
programc, the role of the UKAEA was to develop
nuclear reactor technology.
The UK's civil program was also to include the
construction of an experimental fast breeder
reactor (FBR) and in March 1954, a former wartime
airfield at Dounreay in Caithness, on the north
coast of Scotland, was chosen for this purpose. The
UKAEA commenced work on the Dounreay Fast
Reactor (DFR) the following year (see section below
on UKAEA).

Magnox reactors
One of the greatest achievement's of these early
years of the UKAEA was marked in October 1956
with opening by Queen Elizabeth II of the world's
first commercial nuclear power station at Calder
Hall. The reactor was the first of eight small
prototype Magnox units to be built at Calder Hall
and Chapelcross (in southwest Scotland). Although
Magnox reactors were initially dual-purposed,
combining power generation with plutonium
production for military purposes, the latter function
from 1964 was confined to other facilities at
Windscale. There were previously two fuel changes

per year with burn-up about 400-600 MWd/t. They

used natural uranium metal fuel, had a graphite
moderator and were cooled with carbon dioxide.
Magnox fuel is so called because of its magnesium
alloy cladding, and the chemical reactivity of this
means that the fuel cannot be stored indefinitely
but must be reprocessed.
Subsequent Magnox units were progressively
scaled up tenfold and optimised for continuous
electricity production. The thermal efficiency was
initially very low 22% for the first single-use ones
and this rose to 28% for the later ones of the 26
built in UK. Two were sold to Japan and Italy, and
similar units were built in Francee.
UK Magnox reactors
Reactor MWe net Startup Status
Berkeley 1
138 1962Shutdown 1989
Berkeley 2
138 1962Shutdown 1988
Bradwell 1
123 1962Shutdown 2002
Bradwell 2
123 1962Shutdown 2002
Calder Hall 1 50 1956Shutdown 2003
Calder Hall 2 50 1957Shutdown 2003
Calder Hall 3 50 1958Shutdown 2003
Calder Hall 4 50 1959Shutdown 2003
Chapelcross 1 49 1959Shutdown 2004
Chapelcross 2 49 1959Shutdown 2004
Chapelcross 3 49 1959Shutdown 2004
Chapelcross 4 49 1960Shutdown 2004
Dungeness A1 225 1965Shutdown 2006
Dungeness A2 225 1965Shutdown 2006
Hinkley Point A1
235 1965Shutdown 2000
Hinkley Point A2
235 1965Shutdown 2000
Hunterston A1 160 1964Shutdown 1990
Hunterston A2 160 1964Shutdown 1989
Oldbury 1 217 1967Shutdown end Feb 2012
Oldbury 2 217 1968Shutdown mid-2011
Sizewell A1
210 1966Shutdown 2006
Sizewell A2
210 1966Shutdown 2006
Trawsfynydd 1 196 1965Shutdown 1993

Trawsfynydd 2 196 1965Shutdown 1993

Wylfa 1 490 1971Shutdown Dec 2015
Wylfa 2 490 1971Shutdown April 2012
Total: 26

In February 1955, the government published a

white paper titled A programme of nuclear power
announcing the first purely commercial program,
building between 1400 and 1800 MWe of Magnox
capacity by 1965 and investigating the future use
of fast breeder reactors.
Then the 1956 Suez crisis accentuated concerns
about shortages of coal and oil, prompting a white
paper of April 1957, Capital investment in the coal,
gas and electricity industries, which proposed
increasing the nuclear build program to between
5000 and 6000 MWe.
The government gave the job of implementing the
new Magnox program to the Central Electricity
Authority, which was soon after replaced by the
Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) in April
1958f. Ownership of the first eight Magnox reactors
at Calder Hall and Chapelcross, as well as the
country's wide range of nuclear research and
development efforts including the FBR program
centred at the Dounreay site remained with the
UKAEA (see section below on UKAEA).
In 1956, construction on the twin-unit Berkeley
station commenced, followed by a sister station at
Bradwell the next year. Both stations started
generating electricity in 1962. A further seven
Magnox stations (each comprising two units) built
by five different consortiaj were commissioned by
1971. Although fewer units than had been
envisioned by the 1957 white paper were built
somewhat later than originally planned as a
result of the later plants being scaled up more than

expected, around 4200 MWe of Magnox capacity

was installed.

The advanced gas-cooled reactor

In April 1964, a government white paper, titled The
Second Nuclear Power Programme, set out the next
phase of the UK nuclear power program. Some
5000 MWe of capacity was expected to come
online between 1970 and 1975. The Central
Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) was to call for
tenders for designs based on the UKAEA's
advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) or US watercooled reactors. Following much debate over
choice of design with the CEGB pushing for the
American technology and the UKAEA favouring its
own the AGR was eventually adopted as the UK
standard. In May 1965, describing the AGR as "the
greatest breakthrough of all time," the Minister of
Power announced that the first twin AGR station
would be built at Dungeness B in Kent.
The AGR design was based on the UKAEA's 30 MWe
prototype Windscale Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor
(WAGR), which supplied electricity to the grid from
1963-1981. Seven twin-unit AGR stations were
built, starting up 1976-89. As with the Magnox
design, they are also graphite moderated and
carbon dioxide cooled; but, in contrast to the
Magnox reactors, the AGRs use enriched oxide fuel
in a ceramic form which is burned up to low levels
(relative to LWR fuel). They have a high thermal
efficiency around 40%, due to very high coolant
temperatures of well over 600C (double the figure
of many reactors). However, there was little
standardization across each pair of reactorsm and
operational problems were significant. The AGR is
exclusive to the UK.
As was the case with the Magnox fleet, the AGRs
were designed and built by private industrial

nuclear power consortia as complete power

stations. The Atomic Power Construction Ltd (APC)n
consortium one of three consortia competing for
the contract was awarded the first AGR contract
for two 660 MWe (gross) units at Dungeness.
The other two consortia also won orders for AGR
stations. In 1967, The Nuclear Power Group
(TNPG)o was awarded contracts by the CEGB and
the South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB)p for
the Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B stations,
respectively. Also in 1967, the Nuclear Design and
Construction (NDC) consortium, which was later to
become British Nuclear Design and Construction
(BNDC)q, was awarded contracts from the CEGB for
the Hartlepool and Heysham I stations.
Numerous problems with the original design of
Dungeness B came to light during its construction,
leading to several delays that were compounded
by financing problems. By 1969, following the
collapse of NPC, the project was taken over BNDC.
With five twin-unit AGR stations under
construction, and with few more orders expected
at the time, the government and the CEGB decided
to merge the two remaining consortia. This led to
the creation in 1973 of the National Nuclear
Corporation (NNC)r from TNPG and BNDC. The
Nuclear Power Company, a subsidiary of NNC, was
put in charge of design and construction.
Two further AGR stations were to be ordered
Heysham II and Torness but not until 1980, after
much debate about which design of reactor was to
be built next.
AGR and PWR stations
Plant name
Type Present capacity (MWe net)
power
Status
Dungeness B 1&2 AGR 2 x 545 1983 & 1985
Expected shutdown 2018

First

Hartlepool 1&2 AGR 2 x 595 1983 & 1984 Expected

shutdown 2014, possibly 2019
Heysham I-1 & I-2 AGR 2 x 580 1983 & 1984
Expected shutdown 2014, possibly 2019
Heysham II-1 & II-2 AGR 2 x 615 1988Expected
shutdown 2023
Hinkley Point B 1&2 AGR 2 x 610, but operating at 70%
(430 MWe)
1976Expected shutdown 2016
Hunterston B 1&2 AGR 2 x 610, but operating at 70%
(420 MWe)
1976 & 1977 Expected shutdown 2016
Torness 1&2
AGR 2 x 625 1988 & 1989 Expected
shutdown 2023
Sizewell BPWR 11881995Expected shutdown 2035
Total: 15 units
Approx. 8800

The third nuclear power program

The initial problems encountered with construction

of the AGRs, particularly at Dungeness B, resulted
in another debate on choice of reactor design.
Several designs were considered Magnox, AGR,
HTRs, SGHWRt, Candu and PWR with the Central
Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) pushing
strongly for the US-designed PWR. Following the
government's choice of the SGHWR design, in
February 1975, the go-ahead was given for two
SGHWR plants at Sizewell B (four units) and
Torness (two units) of 660 MWe capacity per
reactoru.
However, due to cuts in public spending along with
increasing projected costs of the SGHWR, the
government put on hold financing of the initial
SGHWR contracts. By mid-1977, the National
Nuclear Corporation (NNC) recommended a
program of new AGRs and PWRs, instead of the
SGHWR. Early in 1978, the then Secretary of State
for Energy Tony Benn announced that the SGHWR
was to be abandoned and that the CEGB and SSEB
were to each build a twin-unit AGR station. In
addition, Benn said the government supported the

industry's intention to order a PWR station.

In mid-1979, there was a change of government,
with the Labour government of James Callaghan
giving way to Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives.
The new government was more supportive of the
PWR and gave the go-ahead to a Westinghouse
PWR at the end of 1979. It was less enthusiastic
about the AGR but nevertheless confirmed in April
1980 that the two AGR stations (at Heysham and
Torness) were to go ahead.
A single PWR at Sizewell B was eventually ordered,
but not until a public inquiry had sat for over two
years from January 1983. Government approval for
the 1188 MWe four-loop Westinghouse PWR was
given in 1987, and the reactor started up in 1994.
The basic design was the SNUPPS (Standardised
Nuclear Unit Power Plant System) with a number of
modifications to meet UK requirements.
Further PWRs were planned, namely Hinkley Point
C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C. A planning inquiry for
Hinkley Point C was carried out in the late 1980s
and consent was given in 1990. However, at the
end of 1989, the government had announced that
a review of nuclear policy would be carried out in
1994, until which time no new nuclear stations
were to be built. Following the review, in May 1995,
the government concluded that new nuclear would
not receive public sector support. At the end of
that year, the CEGB's successor, Nuclear Electric
(see section below on Privatization), decided that
further nuclear plants were not economically viable
and abandoned its plans for new nuclear plants.

UKAEA

When the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) was

created on 19 July 1954, it inherited a number of
facilities from the Ministry of Supply:
The Windscale site (where the two Piles had started

producing plutonium for the country's weapons

program and construction was underway on the
Calder Hall power plant).
The Dounreay site in Caithness (the site chosen for
the fast breeder reactor program).
The Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE)
at Harwell, Oxfordshire.
The site of the headquarters of the Ministry of
Supply's Directorate for Atomic Energy Production
at Risley in Cheshirev.
The Atomic Weapons Research Establishment
(AWRE) at Aldermaston in Berkshirew.
The Capenhurst gaseous diffusion plant in
Cheshirex.
The Springfields nuclear fuel manufacturing facility
in Preston, Lancashire.
The Radiochemical Centre at Amersham,
Buckinghamshirey.
Soon after it was set up, the UKAEA acquired
further sites, including Winfrith and Culham.

Winfrith
Early in 1957, a new site at Winfrith Heath in
Dorset was chosen as a new nuclear research site
the only nuclear site to be built on a greenfield
site. The site was to eventually host eight reactors,
including the Dragon high temperature gas cooled
reactor. Operating between 1964 and 1975,
Dragon was a 20 MWth helium-cooled materials
testing reactor and the first to use coated particle
fuel. Another significant prototype at Winfrith was
the 100 MWe (gross) steam generating heavy
water reactor (SGHWR) which was a pressure-tube
type with light water boiling in the core and heavy
water moderation. It was the only reactor at
Winfrith to generate electricity and operated from
1967 to 1990. In the early 1970s, the SGHWR was
the design selected for Australiaz, as well as for the

UKaa.

Culham
Fusion research was carried out at in the 1940s
and '50s at AERE, where the Zero Energy Toroidal
Assembly (ZETA) operated from 1954 to 1958. A
new site for fusion research was identified by the
UKAEA the location of a former Royal Naval Air
Station at Culham in Oxfordshire and this was
acquired in 1960. The site is now known as the
Culham Science Centre.
The Culham Science Centre hosts the Culham
Centre for Fusion Energy (CCFE, formerly UKAEA
Culham), which includes the Joint European Torus
(JET, see section on JET in the information page on
Nuclear Fusion Power) and the Mega Ampere
Spherical Tokamak Experiment (MAST). JET has
been in operation since 1983 and in 1991 was the
first facility to produce controlled fusion power. JET
was originally built and operated as a Euratom
project, but since the end of 1999, has been
managed by the UKAEA under the European Fusion
Development Agreement (EFDA). MAST began
operation in 1999, following on from the Small
Tight Aspect Ratio Tokamak (START) experiment
(1991-1998).

Dounreay and the FBR program

Early in 1955, construction on the 60 MWth
Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) commencedbb. The
reactor achieved criticality in November 1959 and
in October 1962 became the world's first fast
reactor to supply electricity to the grid. The
maximum electrical power it achieved was 14.5
MW in 1963. It was cooled by liquid NaK (sodiumpotassium 70:30 alloy) and shut down in 1977.
In 1958, the 25 MWth Dounreay Materials Test
Reactor (DMTR) became the first operational
reactor in Scotland. DMTR used enriched uranium

fuel with aluminium cladding and was heavy water

cooled. The reactor was shut down in 1969.
With DFR in operation, a second fast reactor at
Dounreay was ordered in 1966. Construction on
the Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) commenced in
1968 and it began supplying electricity to the grid
in 1975. The 660 MWth (250 MWe) reactor used
plutonium metal fuel and was cooled with liquid
sodium.
Despite the success of the fast reactor program,
PFR was shut down in 1994 following the
government's decision to withdraw its support for
the program. Certain fuel cycle operations
continued at Dounreay for a few years, but these
ceased in 1998, since when the site has had no
operational nuclear facilities.

Break-up of UKAEA
In 1971, the production activities of the UKAEA
were separated out into two new companies, the
main one being BNFL (see section below on BNFL).
Production of medical and industrial radioisotopes
at The Radiochemical Centre in Amersham,
Buckinghamshire was taken over by The
Radiochemical Centre Ltd, which, in 1982, became
the first company to be privatized (as Amersham
International) under Margaret Thatcher's
Conservative government. It later changed its
name to Amersham plc and, in 2004, was acquired
by General Electric and incorporated into GE
Healthcare.
In 1996, the commercial arm of the UKAEA was
privatized as AEA Technology. However, in 2000,
AEA Technology decided to sell its nuclear
engineering business and also to exit the nuclear
industry altogether. By March 2004, AEA
Technology completed its withdrawal from the
nuclear industry.

On 1 April 2005, the Nuclear Decommissioning

Authority began operation, taking control of the
country's nuclear liabilities, including all of the
UKAEA's sites except Culham (see section on NDA
below). The UKAEA's Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd
(DSRL) and Research Sites Restoration Ltd (RSRL)
subsidiaries responsible for remediation work at
Dounreay (DSRL) and the Harwell and Winfrith
(RSRL) sites were placed into a commercial
business, UKAEA Ltd, in April 2008. The UKAEA
agreed to sell UKAEA Ltd to Babcock International
in September 20092. Following this sale, the main
focus of the UKAEA is now fusion research, based
at its Culham site.

BNFL

In 1971, the Atomic Energy Authority Act separated

two new companies out of the UKAEA, with the
UKAEA retaining its research activities. Production
of medical and industrial radioisotopes at The
Radiochemical Centre in Amersham,
Buckinghamshire was taken over by The
Radiochemical Centre Ltd, and the other
production activities were transferred to British
Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL). Responsibility for the
following facilities were taken on by BNFL:
The Calder Hall and Chapelcross Magnox plants.
The Magnox reprocessing plant (often referred to
as B205) on the Windscale site.
The Capenhurst gaseous diffusion plant.
The Springfields nuclear fuel manufacturing facility.
The Risley site, which remained BNFL's
headquarters until 2003.
The Atomic Weapons Research Establishment
(AWRE) was also transferred to BNFL, but soon
after, in 1973, it was taken over by the Ministry of
Defence.
Initially, the UKAEA held all the shares in BNFL (and

The Radiochemical Centre Ltd) but in 1981, the

shareholding was transferred to the Secretary of
State for Energy. In 1984, BNFL became a public
limited company, British Nuclear Fuels plc, still
fully-owned by the government. It was to become
one of the world's largest nuclear companies,
providing services covering almost every part of
nuclear fuel cycle.

Sellafield
Although much of the Windscale site was
transferred to BNFL, the prototype Windscale
Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (WAGR) and the two
Windscale Pilescc remained with the UKAEA. In
1981, the BNFL part of the site was renamed
Sellafield, while the UKAEA's portion retained the
Windscale name.
A number of major plants were built at Sellafield.
Following the decision to reprocess used oxide fuel
from the UK's AGR fleet, as well as from foreign
nuclear reactors, the go-ahead for construction of
the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) was
given in 1978. (Used Magnox fuel has been
reprocessed at the B205 Magnox reprocessing
plant since 1964dd.) With a design capacity of 1200
t/yr, Thorp commenced operation in 1994 (see also
information page on Processing of Used Nuclear
Fuel). A leak at Thorp in April 2005 put its
continued operation into question, but permission
to restart was given at the beginning of 2007ee. It
had been planned to operate Thorp until 2011 to
meet contractual commitments for AGR and
overseas LWR fuel. However, following the April
2005 incident and the subsequent period of
closure, Thorp has since been operating on
reduced capacity due to constraints over
evaporator capacity. A review of the strategy for
the management of used oxide fuel resulted in a

June 2012 decision to close it in 2018 after

completing existing reprocessing contracts. This is
conditional upon having adequate storage space
for used AGR fuel and not needing to replace
highly-active storage tanks (HASTs) of which there
are now 21.
The MOX Demonstration Facility at Sellafield was a
small-scale plant to produce commercial MOX fuel
for light water reactors. The plant was
commissioned between 1992 and 1994, and until
1999 produced fuel for use in Switzerland,
Germany and Japanff.
In 1997, construction on the Sellafield MOX Plant
(SMP) was completed but, due to a lengthy
justification process, operation did not commence
until 2001. The plant produced its first fuel
assembly suitable for export in 2005, but was then
downrated to 40 t/yr from its 120 t/yr design
capacity. In August 2009, it was reported that SMP
had produced only 8 tonnes of fuel (24 assemblies)
in eight years, after costing 637 million to build
and 626 million to operate. However, technical
and commercial endeavours continued and, in May
2010, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA, see section below on Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority) announced that
agreement had been reached with Japanese
utilities "on an overall framework for future
fabrication of MOX fuel in SMP."5

Growth and break-up of BNFL

BNFL continued to expand up to the turn of the

Millennium:
In 1990, BNFL established a decommissioning
division in the USA, known as BNFL Inc.
In 1998, Magnox Electric was transferred to BNFL,
bringing ownership of all the UK's Magnox reactors
under BNFL (see section on Privatization below).

In 1999, BNFL acquired Westinghouse Electric

Company for $1.1 billion.
BNFL bought the nuclear business of ABB for $485
million in 2000 and integrated it into
Westinghouse.
In mid-2000, BNFL acquired a stake in South
Africa's Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)
venturegg.
However, after initially deciding to pursue a public
private partnership arrangement for BNFLhh,
government policy on nuclear changed towards
focusing on cleaning up the liabilities. The 2002
white paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy a
Strategy for Action6, proposed transferring
responsibility for the country's civil nuclear assets
and liabilities to a new body (which was eventually
named the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority).
Then, much to the industry's surprise, the
government made it clear in its February 2003
energy white paper, Our energy future creating a
low carbon economy7, that it had no current plans
to expand the use of nuclear power. The white
paper stated that the "current economics" of
nuclear power "make new nuclear build an
unattractive option and there are important issues
of nuclear waste to be resolved." The government
therefore did not propose to support new nuclear
build, although it added: "But we will keep the
option open."
With the change in focus towards
decommissioning, the government asked BNFL to
carry out a strategic review, which was completed
the end of 2003 under its new chief executive,
Mike Parker. This review led to the break-up of
BNFL, a process that was essentially completed by
May 2009.
Following the strategic review, BNFL initially

reorganized into four business units: British

Nuclear Groupii; Westinghouse; Nuclear Sciences
and Technology Services; and Spent Fuel Services.
Assets and liabilities that were to be transferred to
the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)
were held in a separate unit known as BNFL ALFA
until 1 April 2005, when the NDA commenced its
activities. BNFL ALFA acted as an internal customer
to the other BNFL businesses during this transition
period.
BNFL's businesses were eventually restructured
and divested as follows:
On 1 April 2005, Nuclear Sciences and Technology
Services was renamed Nexia Solutions, which later
became the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL). In
preparation for the establishment of the NNL, the
main base of Nexia Solutions was moved in April
2007 to the newly-built British Technology Centre
(BTC) on the Sellafield site. NNL was launched in
July 2008, and its ownership transferred to the
government in April 2009.
In October 2006, a 49% stake of Spent Fuel
Services was transferred from BNFL to the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA). Spent Fuel
Services was renamed International Nuclear
Services Ltd (INS) in 2007 and in April 2008 the
remaining 51% interest in INS was acquired by the
NDA. INS is responsible for fulfilling used fuel
reprocessing and MOX fuel manufacture contracts.
Transportation of the materials associated with
these contracts is carried out by its Pacific Nuclear
Transport Limitedjj (PNTL) subsidiary.
Westinghouse was sold in 2006 for $5.4 billion to
Toshiba Corporation (77%), The Shaw Group (20%)
and Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd
(3%)8. The acquisition included the contract to
manage and operate the Springfields fuel

fabrication sitekk.
US decommissioning business BNFL Inc changed its
name to BNG America in April 2005ll. Early in 2006,
BNG America was acquired by Envirocare for $90
million to form EnergySolutionsmm.
British Nuclear Group Project Services was acquired
by VT Groupnn early in 2008.
At the end of 2008, the parent body contract to
own the shares in Sellafield Ltd (formerly British
Nuclear Group Sellafield) was awarded to Nuclear
Management Partners (NMP), a US-UK-French
consortium of URSoo, Amec and Areva. The
agreement was for an initial period of five years
with the potential of further extension periods to a
total of 17 years9. Sellafield Ltd manages and
operates the reprocessing and waste storage
facilities at Sellafield, the closed Calder Hall and
Windscale reactors, the Capenhurst site and an
engineering and design centre at Risley.
Reactor Sites Management Company (formerly
British Nuclear Group Magnox), the parent
company of Magnox Electric Ltd was sold in mid2007 to EnergySolutions Inc. Later, in October
2008, Magnox Electric Ltd was separated into two
nuclear licensed companies Magnox North
Limited (responsible for Chapelcross, Hunterston A,
Oldbury, Trawsfynydd and Wylfa) and Magnox
South Limited (Berkeley, Bradwell, Dungeness A,
Hinkley Point A and Sizewell A). These were then
combined into Magnox Ltd in January 2011. The
former Calder Hall station remained under the
management of Sellafield Ltd.
BNFL's one-third shareholding in uranium
enrichment company Urenco was transferred to the
government in 2008. Earlier plans by BNFL to sell
its stake in the Urenco business were blocked by
Urenco's German and Dutch shareholders.

Since May 2009, BNFL has had no remaining

operational businesses, and in October 2010 the
government announced that it was to be formally
wound up, "subject to transferring remaining
assets and liabilities."

Privatization
At the end of 1988, the Conservative government
announced that, in preparation for privatization,
the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB)
would be broken up into two utilities National
Power and PowerGen and transmission system
operator National Grid. Ownership of CEGB's
nuclear power stations in England and Wales was
taken on by National Power. (The Magnox stations
at Calder Hall and Chapelcross remained with
BNFL.) However, due to uncertainty over
decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal costs,
the government then decided to delay privatization
of the nuclear stations and in March 1990, the
nuclear division of National Power was placed into
a new company named Nuclear Electric.
Meanwhile, in Scotland, the nuclear assets of the
South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB) were
placed into Scottish Nuclear in April 1990 and in
the following year, the non-nuclear parts of SSEB
was privatized as ScottishPower.

British Energy
A review carried out in 1994, Review of the Future
Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK (published in
May 1995), concluded that moving as much of the
nuclear generating industry as possible into the
private sector would bring benefits for the industry,
electricity consumers and taxpayers. This led to
the establishment of British Energy in 1995 to take
on the more modern plants for privatization.
However, the 1994 review also took the view that
public sector support for a new nuclear station was

inappropriate. This led to Nuclear Electric's

decision not to proceed with plans to construct
Hinkley Point C (which had received planning
permission in 1990) and to withdraw the planning
application for Sizewell C (see section above on
The third nuclear power program).
Having taken ownership of the country's seven
AGR stations Scottish Nuclear's Hunterston B and
Torness plus Nuclear Electric's five AGR stations
and the Sizewell B PWR, British Energy was
privatized in July 1996. Scottish Nuclear's
Hunterston A Magnox station (by then shutdown)
and the eight Nuclear Electric Magnox stations (two
of which were shutdown) were kept in the public
sector under a new company, Magnox Electric plc.
In March 1998, Magnox Electric was integrated
with BNFL, which already operated the Calder Hall
and Chapelcross Magnox stations.
British Energy initially operated successfully and
became the country's largest generator by 1998.
However, this success led to high payments to
shareholders rather than adequate investment in
plant, leading to several unplanned outages in the
future. Before significant problems began to
surface, the company grew ambitiously at home
and abroad:
In an attempt to become a vertically integrated
company, British Energy acquired the electricity
and gas retail distribution business Swalec (South
Wales Electricity) from Hyder early in 1999pp.
Within a few weeks, British Energy had changed its
corporate strategy away from retail sales and sold
Swalec to Scottish and Southern Energy.
In September 1997, British Energy and Philadelphia
Electric Company Energy (Peco Energy) formed
AmerGen, a 50:50 joint venture company to
acquire and operate nuclear plants in the USAqq.

AmerGen bought Three Mile Island 1, Clinton and

Oyster Creek in 1999.
In 2000, British Energy bought the 1960 MWe
Eggborough coal-fired plant from National Power
for 650 million. The purchase was largely driven
by the company's concern over the effect its lack
of flexible generation would have under the New
Electricity Trading Arrangements, which came into
force in March 2001.
Bruce Power was established in April 2000 by
British Energy (82.4%), Cameco Corporation (15%),
the Power Workers Union (2%) and The Society of
Energy Professionals (0.6%) to acquire Ontario
Power Generation's (OPG's) Bruce A and Bruce B
plants (both four-unit Candu stations) in Ontariorr.
In May 2001, Bruce Power leased the Bruce
stations for 17 years, with options to extend the
lease for up to 25 more years.
The introduction of the New Electricity Trading
Arrangements in March 2001 led to considerable
overcapacity due to recent construction of much
gas-fired plant. The result was that wholesale
prices declined to a level that was below
production cost for British Energy and, in
September 2002, the company was no longer able
to meet its liabilities. The government granted
British Energy a credit facility to allow it to
continue operation and, in October 2003, British
Energy agreed a restructuring deal with the
government and its creditors.
Several factors contributed to the financial collapse
of British Energy:10
The company was saddled with expensive
reprocessing contracts with BNFL (at 0.45 p/kWh
about six times what used fuel arrangements cost
in the USA)ss.
British Energy was liable for the climate change

levy (at up to 0.15 p/kWh), despite the fact that its

nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide.
8
Having failed in its attempts to diversify into
electricity supply, the lack of vertical integration
left the company exposed to wholesale power
prices.
9
The Eggborough coal station had been purchased
at the peak of the market and its value was written
down in 2002 to 300 million. While providing the
company with some flexible generating capacity, it
also increased the amount of electricity that had to
be sold.
10 Although the AmerGen and Bruce Power projects
were very successful, the need to reinvest profits
(for example in work being carried out to restart
the Bruce A units) meant that these businesses
were not able to provide sufficient cash in the short
term.
11 The AGR fleet in the UK experienced several
unplanned outages largely due to inadequate
investment in the past.
As a result of the restructuring of British Energy, its
stakes in AmerGen and Bruce Power were soldtt,
and the reprocessing contracts with BNFL
renegotiated. In exchange for 100% of the equity
in the company, shareholders received 2.5% equity
in the restructured company, with the remainder
going to British Energy's creditors. A key part of
the restructuring deal was the so-called cash
sweep, where the company would contribute 65%
of its free cash each year to the Nuclear Liabilities
Fund (NLF), which is responsible for the future cost
of decommissioning British Energy's existing fleet
of nuclear power stations. In mid-2007, part of the
cash sweep entitlement was converted into shares,
which were sold for 2.3 billion. The NLF's
remaining 36% interest was sold to EDF for 4.4

billion in January 2009.

The restructuring of British Energy was completed
in January 2005. Although the company's AGRs
continued to experience ageing-related issues, the
wholesale price of electricity increased after
restructuring, and the company was in possession
of prime sites for new build. As soon as the
government gave the green light to new nuclear
build early in 2008, British Energy became the
object of a bidding war that was eventually won by
EDF. The 12.5 billion acquisition was completed in
January 2009. Later in 2009, Centrica bought a
20% stake in British Energy for 2.3 billion11.
Conditions attached to the acquisition of British
Energy by EDF included the disposal of the 1960
MWe Eggborough coal-fired plant and EDF's 790
MWe Sutton Bridge gas-fired station. In addition
EDF was required to sell land at Wylfa, Bradwell
and either Dungeness or Heysham as well as to
relinquish one of the three grid connection
agreements it held for Hinkley Point.

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

At the end of 2001, the government announced

that it would set up a Liabilities Management
Authority to manage the public sector civil nuclear
liabilities. The authority, which was later named
the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA),
would take over the liabilities held by the UKAEA
(then estimated at 7 billion) and BNFL (35
billion), including the operating facilities such as
the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) and
the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP).
On 1 April 2005, the NDA became the owner of the
UK's legacy nuclear plant and facilities. The sites
taken on by the NDA were:
The 11 Magnox reactor sites.
BNFL's fuel cycle sites: Capenhurst (the site of the

gaseous diffusion enrichment plant that ceased

operation in 1982); the Springfields fuel fabrication
site; the Sellafield site; and the low-level
radioactive waste repository (LLW Repository) at
Drigg close to Sellafield.
The UKAEA sites at Dounreay, Harwell and
Winfrithuu.
Four Magnox plants were still in operation when
the NDA took ownership of the fleet. The Sizewell A
and Dungeness A stations closed at the end of
2006 and Oldbury and Wylfa were due to close in
December 2008 and March 2010, respectively. The
NDA has since extended the operating lifetimes of
Oldbury 1 to June 2011 and unit 2 to the end of
2012, and Wylfa to the end of 2012 or beyond. In
certain respects Wylfa is a prototype AGR
design. vv
The NDA contracts out the management and
operation of its sites and most of these
arrangements are described in the sections above
on the UKAEA and BNFL.
The estimated cost of managing the NDA's total
liabilities comes to 98.0 billion (undiscounted), of
which 10.2 billion is for the NDA's share of a
geological disposal facilityww. Annual spending
since the NDA commenced full operation has been
up to 3 billion, with over 1 billion per year of this
offset by operational revenuexx. Total annual
expenditure is expected to fall rapidly, reaching
below 1 billion per year around 2030.

Power reactor decommissioning

The government in 1995 determined that

decommissioning should be undertaken as soon as
reasonably practicable, the rate of dismantling
being determined by a variety of factors.
Experience so far among the 30 decommissioned
UK reactors (listed at end of the information page

on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities) has shown

that costs are lower than originally predicted.
However, part of the long-term problem in the UK
is that costs for decommissioning gas-cooled
reactors are much higher per unit of capacity than
for light water reactors at least five times for
Magnox. This is due to the large volume of material
and the need to dispose of a lot of graphite
moderator. Decommissioning waste volumes per
unit capacity for Magnox are ten times those for
Western light water reactors.
The Magnox reactors have undergone extensive
dismantling and in 2010 the twin Berkeley
reactors, which closed 21 years earlier, were the
first to be put into Safestor12, pending demolition
in about 65 years time. The last two Magnox power
stations - the only ones with prestressed concrete
pressure vessels (rather than steel) - closed in
2012 and 2015.
The Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund
was set up in 1996 to ensure a secure source of
funds for eventual decommissioning of nuclear
power plants operated by British Energy (BE). BE
was the only contributor to the fund, to which final
payment would have been made in 2035 or
whenever Sizewell B was closed down. Upon
privatisation of BE (see section above on British
Energy), the fund received 228 million on account
of the decommissioning liabilities of BE's
predecessors and in recognition of sums that the
Central Electricity Generating Board and Nuclear
Electric had paid the Treasury for that. In 2001, the
trustees of the fund reported that its value
matched its liabilities. In March 2004, the fund was
440 million and BE estimated the undiscounted
cost of decommissioning its plants as 5.1 billion
most not required until many years hence.

With the restructuring of BE in 2005 the assets of

the fund were passed over to the new Nuclear
Liabilities Fund (see section above on British
Energy). The fund is administered by the NDA and
was valued at 8.4 billion as of March 2010.
The government has announced a Nuclear
Liabilities Financing Assurance Board (NLFAB) to
provide independent scrutiny and advice on the
suitability of the decommissioning programs
submitted by operators of new nuclear power
stations.

Geological disposal facility

The Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive
(Nirex) was established by the nuclear industry in
1982 to research options for the deep geological
disposal of radioactive waste. In the late 1980s,
Nirex began investigations into the suitability of
sites near Dounreay and Sellafield as potential lowand intermediate-level waste repositories. In 1991,
Nirex announced plans to build a rock
characterisation facility (RCF) at the site near
Sellafield but this was rejected by Cumbria County
Council. An appeal by Nirex led to a public inquiry
in 1995-96 but, shortly before a general election in
March 1997, the then Secretary of State for the
Environment John Gummer rejected the
application.
In 2001, the the UK Government (together with the
devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland) initiated the Managing
Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme with
a public consultation on the process13. Following
the consultation, an independent body, the
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM) was set up to recommend options to
provide a long-term solution to managing higher
activity radioactive wastes in the UK. The scope of

investigation covered an eventual 470,000 cubic

metres of mostly high- and intermediate-level
wastes, and also the implications of treating
plutonium and depleted uranium as wastes, as well
as possibly abandoning any reprocessing of used
fuel.
After three years' deliberation, CoRWM
recommended deep geological disposal of highand intermediate-level wastes long-term with early
closure of the repository, with "robust interim
storage" in the meantime. Repository location
would be on basis of community agreement, and
about one-third of the UK appears to be
geologically suitable. CoRWM's final report14 in July
2006 addressed questions such as retrievability,
but only in principle. CoRWM said that the
government should move swiftly to implement its
recommendations, though it acknowledged that
actually commissioning a repository could take
decades. The government accepted CoRWM's key
recommendationsyy and said that a new committee
with the same name would be set up to give
continuing advice on implementing them15. (The
new CoRWM was reconstituted in October 2007, to
oversee the radioactive waste management
program and to provide advice to the government
on it.)
In its response to CoRWM's recommendations, the
government announced that the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA, see section
above on Nuclear Decommissioning Authority)
would take over Nirex in line with its mandate for
storage and eventual geological disposal of higher
activity wasteszz. Following the integration of Nirex
into the NDA, the NDA established the Radioactive
Waste Management Directorate (RWMD) in April
2007 to take responsibility for the geological

disposal facility program.

In June 2007, the UK Government with the Welsh
and Northern Ireland devolved administrationsaaa,
launched the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely:
A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal
consultation, which led to a June 2008 white paper
of the same name17. This set out how the
Government intended to manage higher activity
radioactive waste in the long-term through to
geological disposal, with interim storage and
ongoing research and development to support its
optimised implementation. It also invited
communities to express an interest in opening up
(without commitment) discussions with
Government on the possibility of hosting a
geological disposal facility at some point in the
future.

Further Information
Notes
a. The British government did not decide to
develop atomic weapons until January 1947, but
this aim was implicit in nuclear research up to that
point. [Back]
b. When the Sellafield site in the UK's Cumbria was
announced as the new atomic energy site in 1946,
it was renamed Windscale. Although it at first came
under the Ministry of Supply, responsibility for the
UK's nuclear energy program transferred to the
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)
in 1954. In 1971, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL)
was spun out of the UKAEA to oversee the
production activities and later, in 1981, the BNFL
portion of the Windscale site was renamed
Sellafield. The UKAEA part of the site which
included the Windscale Piles and the prototype
Windscale Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (WAGR)

retained the Windscale name. [Back]

c. The UKAEA was divided into four groups:
Production, Reactor, Research and Weapons. The
Weapons Group remained within the UKAEA until
1973, when it was transferred to the Ministry of
Defence. [Back]
d. The decision to build the particular kind of
reactor at Calder Hall was taken very early in the
light of their intended role for producing weaponsgrade plutonium while serving as prototypes for
power generation, despite frequent fuel changes
(to optimize production of plutonium). Also there
was no spare enrichment capacity for power
generation hence the use of unenriched uranium
and any civil program had to rely on readily
available materials such as graphite for moderator,
carbon dioxide for heat transfer and Magnox
(magnesium non-oxidising) cladding for the natural
uranium fuel. [Back]
e. North Korea's 5 MWe reactor at Yongbyon and
two unfinished larger units (at Yongbyon and
Taechon) is believed to be copied from blueprints
of Calder Hall. [Back]
f. Brief history of the CEGB and privatization of its
nuclear plants
The British Electricity Authority (BEA) was formed
following the nationalization of the electricity
supply industry under the Electricity Act 1947.
Following the Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland)
Act 1954, the BEA was replaced by the Central
Electricity Authority (CEA) and the South of
Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB)g. The CEA was
dissolved by the Electricity Act 1957 and replaced
by the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB),
which commenced activities in April 1958.
Following the Electricity Act 1989, the CEGB was
broken up into three companies: transmission

system operator National Grid Company; and two

generating companies, PowerGen and National
Power, with the nuclear power stations
incorporated into the latter. The government then
decided to delay privatization of the nuclear
stations and the nuclear division of National Power
was placed into a new company named Nuclear
Electric, which came into being in March 1990.
In Scotland, Scottish Nuclear was formed in April
1990 to take on the nuclear assets of SSEBh. These
were: two AGR stations (Torness and Hunterston B);
and the Hunterston A Magnox station, which had
been shut down by SSEB at the end of December
1989 (unit 2) and March 1990 (unit 1).
The UK's nuclear power stations therefore
remained in public ownership until 1996, when
British Energy was privatized. At that time, Scottish
Nuclear's two AGR stations and Nuclear Electric's
AGRs, as well as its recently completed PWR at
Sizewell, were transferred to British Energy.
Nuclear Electric's Magnox stations, along with
Scottish Nuclear's Hunterston A, were combined
into Magnox Electric and never privatized. Magnox
Electric was taken over by BNFLi at the beginning
of 1998. From then, all the UK's Magnox reactors,
including Calder Hall and Chapelcross, were under
BNFL ownership up until April 2005, when the
country's civil nuclear liabilities were transferred to
the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The AGR
stations and PWR remained in British Energy, which
was acquired by France's EDF in February 2009.
[Back]
g. The electricity assets in the northern part of
Scotland had been taken over by the North of
Scotland Hydro-Electric Board when the UK
electricity supply industry was nationalized in
1948. The assets of North of Scotland Hydro-

Electric Board were later acquired by Scottish

Hydro Electric ahead of privatization in June 1991.
In December 1998, Scottish Hydro Electric merged
with Southern Electric to become Scottish and
Southern Energy. [Back]
h. In 1990, the nuclear assets of South of Scotland
Electricity Board (SSEB) were placed into Scottish
Nuclear and the non-nuclear into ScottishPower,
which was to be privatized the following year.
ScottishPower was acquired by Spanish energy firm
Iberdrola in 2007. [Back]
i. In 1971, UKAEA was broken up into research and
production divisions, with the main production
division becoming British Nuclear Fuels Limited
(BNFL). In 1984, BNFL became a governmentowned public limited company, British Nuclear
Fuels plc. [Back]
j. Four consortia were set up in 1955, and a fifth
one in 1956. The first four Magnox reactor
contracts were awarded in 1956-57 to: a
consortium led by Associated Electrical Industries
(AEI) with John Thompson, for the contract for
Berkeley; Nuclear Power Plant Company (NPPC), a
consortium led by C. A. Parsons, for the Bradwell
contractk; a consortium led by General Electric
Company (GEC not related to the US company
General Electric) with Simon Carves, for the
Hunterston contractl; a consortium led by English
Electric, the Hinkley Point contract. In 1959, the
fifth consortium, Atomic Power Constructions
(APC), led by International Combustion and Fairey
Engineering, was awarded the contract for
Trawsfynydd.
The contracts for the three other UK Magnox power
stations were awarded to: the English Electric
consortium for Sizewell A and Wylfa, in 1960 and
1963, respectively; and to TNPG (see below) for

Oldbury in 1962.
In 1960, the AEI-John Thompson Nuclear Energy
Company and NPPC formed The Nuclear Power
Group (TNPG).
In 1962, the GEC consortium and APC formed
United Power Company (UPC), though the original
GEC-Simon Carves team were not included.
However, UPC was dissolved in 1964.
(Responsibility for the construction of Hunterston
transferred to UPC during 1962-64, and then
reverted to GEC.)
In 1965, the English Electric-led consortium
became Nuclear Design and Construction (NDC)
following its reorganization into a joint subsidiary of
English Electric, Babcock & Wilcox Ltd and Taylor
Woodrow Construction Ltd. With GEC's acquisition
of English Electric in 1968, the NDC became British
Nuclear Design and Construction (BNDC). Prior to
GEC's acquisition of English Electric, in 1967, GEC
had acquired Associated Electrical Industries (AEI).
As a result of these changes, the consortia that
were contracted to build many of the Magnox
stations had changed by the time the projects were
completed. [Back]
k. NPPC also built the Latina Magnox reactor in
Italy. [Back]
l. The GEC-Simon Carves Atomic Energy Division
also built the Tokai Mura Magnox reactor in Japan.
(As for Hunterston, the project was managed by
UPC during 1962-64 see Note j.) [Back]
m. Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B were sister
stations, as were Hartlepool and Heysham I. All
other nuclear plants in the UK are essentially of
unique design. [Back]
n. While bidding was underway for the country's
new generation of nuclear plants, General Electric
Company (GEC, not related to the US company

General Electric) withdrew from the United Power

Company (UPC) consortium, leaving Atomic Power
Constructions (APC, see Note j above), which in
1965 was awarded the contract for the first of the
country's AGR stations, at Dungeness B. In 1969,
the escalating costs of the project caused APC to
go into administration. Meanwhile, former UPC
partner GEC had merged with the English Electricled consortium Nuclear Design and Construction
(NDC) to form British Nuclear Design and
Construction (BNDC). Following the collapse of
APC, the Dungeness B project was taken over by a
team drawn from BNDC, GEC and the Central
Electricity Generating Board (CEGB, see Note f
above). [Back]
o. The Nuclear Power Group (TNPG) was formed in
1960 out of two of the original five nuclear vendor
consortia (see Note j above). [Back]
p. The South of Scotland Electricity Board (SSEB)
and the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) replaced
the British Electricity Authority (BEA) in 1954 (see
Note f above). The CEA was then replaced by the
Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) in
1958. The electricity assets in the northern part of
Scotland (which did not include nuclear stations)
were managed by the North of Scotland HydroElectric Board (see Note g above). [Back]
q. In 1965, one of the original five nuclear vendor
consortia (see Note j above) reorganized into
Nuclear Design and Construction (NDC), a joint
subsidiary of English Electric, Babcock & Wilcox Ltd
and Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd. Following
GEC's acquisition of English Electric in 1968, the
NDC became British Nuclear Design and
Construction (BNDC). One year earlier, in 1967,
GEC had acquired Associated Electrical Industries
(AEI), which had led the consortium that won the

first commercial Magnox station contract

(Berkeley) and, in 1960, merged with the Nuclear
Power Plant Company (NPPC) company to form The
Nuclear Power Group (TNPG). [Back]
r. The ownership of the National Nuclear
Corporation (NNC) was divided between the UKAEA
(15%), seven companies left from the old consortia
(35%) plus GEC (50%). [Back]
s. A prototype high-temperature gas-cooled reactor
(HTR), the 20 MWth Dragon, had been in operation
at the UKAEA's Winfrith site since 1965. [Back]
t. A 100 MWe prototype of the steam-generating
heavy water reactor (SGHWR) started up at
UKAEA's Winfrith site in 1968. The design was
favoured by the South of Scotland Electricity Board
(SSEB). [Back]
u. Many political factors were at play at the time,
not least the growing concerns over oil supplies
prompted by the October 1973 Yom Kippur War. On
the domestic front, the coal miners' strikes of 1972
and 1974 resulted in not only power cuts and a
three-day working week, but also the defeat of the
Conservative government (under Prime Minister
Edward Heath) by Harold Wilson's Labour
government. Along with the Conservatives went
the main support for the Westinghouse PWR
design, while the Labour government was more in
favour of the indigenous SGHWR. Generally
speaking, with the new Secretary of State for
Energy, Eric Varley, coming from a background in
the coal mining industry, prospects for the nuclear
industry were less bright under the new Labour
government. [Back]
v. In 1946, the Directorate of Atomic Energy
Production established a research centre on a
former Royal Ordnance Factory site at Risley in
Cheshire to lead the country's efforts to produce an

atomic bomb. The facility, which was responsible

for most of the nuclear infrastructure in the UK,
was taken over by the UKAEA in 1954. [Back]
w. The Atomic Weapons Research Establishment
(AWRE) was established by the Ministry of Supply
in April 1950 at RAF Aldermaston, a former World
War II airfield in Berkshire. It was transferred to the
UKAEA in 1954 and then British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
(BNFL) when BNFL was created out of the UKAEA in
1971. It was taken over by the Ministry of Defence
in 1973 and, in 1987, was combined with other
sites to form the Atomic Weapons Establishment
(AWE). [Back]
x. In 1950, the Ministry of Supply took over the site
of the Capenhurst Royal Ordinance Factory and
surrounding land in Cheshire to build a gaseous
diffusion uranium enrichment plant. Enrichment
commenced in 1952 and, from 1962 until its
closure in 1982, the diffusion plant operated only
as a civil facility. The site was transferred to the
UKAEA in 1954 and then to British Nuclear Fuels
Ltd (BNFL), when BNFL was created out of the
UKAEA in 1971.
The March 1970 signing of the Treaty of Almelo
between the British, Dutch and German
governments led to the construction of a gaseous
centrifuge enrichment plant on the Capenhurst
site. Urenco was established in 1971 to market the
enriched uranium product and during 1993-94 the
centrifuge enrichment plant and associated
facilities were transferred from BNFL to Urenco,
with BNFL retaining the closed diffusion plant.
[Back]
y. A national centre for the development and
manufacture of radioactive materials for peacetime
uses in medicine, scientific research and industry
was established at Amersham, in Buckinghamshire,

in 1946. It was renamed The Radiochemical Centre

in 1949, and from 1950, was run as an out-station
of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at
Harwell, transferring to the UKAEA in 1954.
In 1971, while the UKAEA retained its research
activities, two new companies were carved out of
the UKAEA: British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) took on
the production activities; and The Radiochemical
Centre Ltd took over production of medical and
industrial radioisotopes. In 1982, The
Radiochemical Centre Ltd was privatized and
renamed Amersham International plc. In 1997, the
company merged with the businesses of Pharmacia
Biotech (Sweden) and Nycomed (Norway) and, in
2001, changed its name to Amersham plc. In 2004,
Amersham was acquired by General Electric and
incorporated into GE Healthcare. [Back]
z. In 1969, plans for a nuclear power reactor at
Jervis Bay, New South Wales, were approved.
Following the submission of tenders in 1970, the
SGHWR design was chosen. The project was
cancelled in June 1971, soon after John Gorton was
replaced as prime minister by William McMahon
(who was against the planned nuclear power
program). [Back]
aa. Following the government's choice of the
SGHWR design, in February 1975 the go-ahead was
given for two SGHWR plants at Sizewell B (four
units) and Torness (two units) of 660 MWe capacity
per reactor. However, in 1978, development of the
SGHWR was abandoned in favour of the AGR (see
section above on The third nuclear power
program). [Back]
bb. The production of plutonium for military
purposes was the main driving force behind FBR
development. As was the case with the Magnox
reactors that were under construction at Calder

Hall at that time, power generation of the

Dounreay Fast Reactor was a secondary
consideration. [Back]
cc. The Windscale Piles were shut down after a
severe fire occurred in Pile 1 in October 1957.
[Back]
dd. The 1500 t/yr Magnox reprocessing plant at
Sellafield started up in 1964, receiving used fuel
from all Magnox plants. (Magnox fuel, due to the
chemical reactivity of the cladding, cannot be
stored indefinitely and therefore needs to be
reprocessed.) In 2001, BNFL had committed to
cease Magnox reprocessing by 2012. This
timetable ensured all associated discharges would
have ceased well before 2020, in line with the
objective of the Convention for the Protection of
the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
(the OSPAR Convention) to achieve near zero
additional radionuclide concentrations in the North
East Atlantic, North Sea and the Irish Sea marine
environment by 2020. The main concern was the
discharge of technetium-99, which was present in
the waste stream from Magnox reprocessing. In
2003, the introduction of a new effluent treatment
process substantially reduced the amount of Tc-99
in the waste stream, allowing Magnox reprocessing
to continue well beyond 2012. The effluent
discharge process uses tetraphenylphosphonium
bromide to complex the Tc-99, forming a solid that
can be removed from the discharge stream.
Along with BNFL's other facilities, the B205
reprocessing plant was transferred to the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA) on 1 April 2005.
The planned closure date for the reprocessing plant
envisaged in the NDA's Magnox Operating
Programme is around 2016. [Back]
ee. A leak resulting from a pipe failure was

discovered in April 2005 at Thorp. The pipe

supplied dissolved used fuel in nitric acid to an
accountancy tank in the plant's feed clarification
cell. The 83,000 litre spill was contained in the cell
but the incident was rated Level 3 on the
International Nuclear Event Scale a serious
incident without off-site radiological consequences.
The spilled liquid was recovered in June, and BNFL
subsidiary British Nuclear Group was fined
500,000 in October 2006. The Chief Inspector of
nuclear installations acknowledged that while there
had been no harm to workers or the public, it
nevertheless represented a major operational lapse
which would not be tolerated3. [Back]
ff. In September 1999, it was discovered that some
quality assurance data of fuel pellets manufactured
at the MOX Demonstration Facility (MDF) had been
falsified. A Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII)
investigation into the matter stated: "The events at
MDF which have been revealed in the course of
this investigation could not have occurred had
there been a proper safety culture within this
plant."4 Eight assemblies delivered to Japan in the
summer of 1999 were returned and BNFL paid 40
million compensation to Kansai Electric Power
Company. The incident also resulted in the
resignation of BNFL chief executive John Taylor.
MDF was closed in 1999 when the matter came to
light. In 2002, BNFL was given permission to
operate the plant as a support facility for the
Sellafield MOX Plant, which was undergoing
commissioning at the time, and some material
processing was later carried out at MDF. [Back]
gg. BNFL initially acquired a 22.5% interest in the
PBMR project. This was later reduced to 15%,
before being transferred to BNFL's Westinghouse
business, which was sold to Toshiba in 2006 (see

section on PBMR in the information page on

Nuclear Power in South Africa). [Back]
hh. In mid-1999, the government decided to work
towards introducing a public private partnership
(PPP) into BNFL, where the government would
retain a 51% stake in the company. This policy
changed with the 2002 white paper Managing the
Nuclear Legacy a Strategy for Action. [Back]
ii. British Nuclear Group comprised three main
divisions: Nuclear Decommissioning & Cleanup,
later Project Services Ltd; Spent Fuel &
Engineering, later Sellafield Ltd; and Magnox
Generation. [Back]
jj. Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited is owned by
International Nuclear Services (62.5%); Areva
subsidiary TN International (12.5%); and the
Overseas Reprocessing Committee (25%), an
organization belonging to the Federation of Electric
Power Companies, which manages the
reprocessing and transport contracts on behalf of
the 10 Japanese utilities that operate nuclear
power plants. [Back]
kk. When the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA) took ownership of the Springfields site on 1
April 2005, BNFL subsidiary Westinghouse
continued with the management and operation
(M&O) of the site through its Uranium Asset
Management Ltd (UAM) business. This
arrangement continued with the sale of
Westinghouse to Toshiba. The M&O contract
expired at the end of March 2010 and, from April
2010, Westinghouse leased the site on a long-term
basis from the NDA. Responsibility for the
commercial fuel manufacturing business and the
workforce was transferred to Westinghouse. At the
same time, UAM was replaced by a 60:40 ToshibaWestinghouse joint venture, Advance Uranium

Asset Management Ltd. [Back]

ll. The change of name from BNFL Inc to BNG
America, and its incorporation into the British
Nuclear Group division, coincided with the decision
to adopt a low-risk strategy. BNFL Inc had
previously got into financial difficulty over two
major fixed-price contracts with the US Department
of Energy the East Tennessee Technology Park
(ETTP) project at Oak Ridge and the Advanced
Mixed Waste Treatment Plant (AMWTP) at Idaho.
Due to the high level of financial uncertainty
associated with them, these contracts had to be
resolved before there could be any clarity on the
future of the decommissioning division. Agreement
between the UK and US governments regarding the
closure of these contracts was reached early in
2005. [Back]
mm. EnergySolutions was initially formed from the
merger of Envirocare of Utah, Scientech D&D and
BNG America. Envirocare bought Scientech D&D in
October 2005. Early in February 2006, Envirocare's
$90 million acquisition of BNG America was
announced, with the three merged companies
forming EnergySolutions. Also in early February
2006, EnergySolutions announced the acquisition
of Duratek. [Back]
nn. Defence and support services company VT
Group completed the acquisition of British Nuclear
Group Project Services Limited to form VT Nuclear
Services in January 2008. In July 2010, VT Group
was acquired by Babcock International Group.
[Back]
oo. The Nuclear Management Partners consortium
was formed by Washington Group International,
Amec and Areva to bid for the parent body contract
of Sellafield Ltd, the competition for which was
launched in November 2006. The US partner

became the Washington Division of URS, following

the acquisition of Washington Group International
by URS in November 2007. [Back]
pp. One of 15 area electricity boards formed under
the Electricity Act 1947, South Wales Electricity
Board was bought out in 1996 by Welsh Water,
which was rebranded as Hyder. The Swalec (South
Wales Electricity) brand was maintained within
Hyder and Swalec Gas was established when
deregulation of the gas market commenced in
1997. The Swalec electricity and gas supply
business, along with the Swalec brand, was sold to
British Energy in June 2000 for 105 million. In
August of the same year, unable to acquire further
electricity supply companies, British Energy
instead sold its Swalec business to Scottish and
Southern Energy (SSE, see Note g above) for 210
million. [Back]
qq. Philadelphia Electric Company Energy merged
with Commonwealth Edison owner Unicom in
October 2000 to form Exelon Corporation. In 2003,
Exelon acquired British Energy's 50% stake in
AmerGen and incorporated it into its Exelon
Nuclear business unit. [Back]
rr. The four Bruce A units had been laid-up at the
time they were leased by Ontario Power
Generation to Bruce Power (see information page
on Nuclear Power in Canada, in particular the
section on Reactor refurbishment: Bruce). [Back]
ss. Soon after privatization, British Energy had
renegotiated its reprocessing contracts with BNFL.
The pricing of the contracts amounting to some
400 million per year was linked to inflation at
BNFL's insistence, whereas British Energy had
wanted it to be linked to electricity prices. When
wholesale electricity prices (and consequently
British Energy's revenues) fell, British Energy faced

rising reprocessing costs. [Back]

tt. British Energy's 50% stake (approximately 1250
MWe) in AmerGen was purchased by Exelon for
$276.5 million.
79.8% of British Energy's 82.4% stake in Bruce
Power (along with British Energy's 50% interest in
Huron Wind, which owns five 1.8 MWe wind
turbines next to the Bruce Power Visitors Centre)
went to a consortium made up of Cameco, BPC
Generation Infrastructure Trust and TransCanada
PipeLines Limited. The remaining 2.6% went to the
Power Workers' Union and The Society of Energy
Professionals. The sale was expected to raise C$
770 million, but C$ 630 million (around 250
million) was paid on closing the deal, with the rest
dependent on a number of contingencies, in
particular that Bruce A1 and A2 would be restarted
by 15 June 2003 and 1 August 2003, respectively.
As a result of the disposal, Bruce Power was owned
by: Cameco (31.6%); BPC Generation Infrastructure
Trust (31.6%); TransCanada PipeLines Limited
(31.6%); the Power Workers' Union (4%); and The
Society of Energy Professionals (1.2%). [Back]
uu. The Culham site was not transferred to the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and ownership
of the site remained with the UKAEA. Although no
decision has been made, it is likely that the
government will transfer the management of the
nuclear liabilities at Culham to the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority when facilities such as
the Joint European Torus (JET) facility enter the
decommissioning phase. [Back]
vv. Operation of Oldbury 1 is currently expected to
cease by the end of 2012, or when the fuel runs
out. [Back]
ww. The estimated costs for decommissioning and
clean-up of the UK's civil nuclear liabilities have

generally been increasing. The 2002 white paper

Managing the Nuclear Legacy A strategy for
action (see Reference 6) estimated these costs at
48 billion. By the time of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority's (NDA's) 2010/11
annual report, the estimated costs of the NDA's
nuclear liabilities were 98.0 billion (undiscounted)
including the NDA's share of the planned geological
disposal facility (10.2 billion out of the full
estimated cost of 11.5 billion). [Back]
xx. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's
operational income reached nearly 2 billion in the
financial year to end March 2009. However, income
for the year to March 2010 had fallen to 1,266
million, and to 1,096 million in the year to March
2011. Operational expenditure in the year to March
2011 was 2.8 billion (2.6 billion in the year to
March 2010) before adjustments. [Back]
yy. It is worth noting that one of the main points
made by CoRWM in its Managing our Radioactive
Waste Safely report (see Reference 14) was
apparently sidestepped by the Government.
CoRWM's report stated: "It must be emphasised
that CoRWMs recommendations are directed to
existing and committed waste arisings." However,
in its response (see Reference 15) to CoRWM's
recommendations, the Government said that
negotiations with potential host communities
would "take into account not only wastes that will
arise from sites owned by the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority but also wastes that
have arisen, or will arise, from other organisations
UK nuclear activities."
As CoRWM pointed out in its report, the
Government published its July 2006 energy policy
review which effectively reversed the
Government's opposition to new nuclear build

when CoRWM was in the process of finalizing its

recommendations. CoRWM's recommendations,
therefore, applied to what it referred to as the
'CoRWM inventory', and not to wastes from new
build. According to CoRWM: "Should a new build
programme be introduced, in CoRWMs view it
would require a quite separate process to test and
validate proposals for the management of the
wastes arising." [Back]
zz. In April 2005, the government assumed control
of Nirex and gave it independence from the nuclear
industry in order to achieve greater transparency
for its endeavours. Up to that point, shares in Nirex
were held by BNFL, UKAEA and British Energy. The
Ministry of Defence provided funds but was not a
shareholder. [Back]
aaa. The Scottish devolved administration pulled
out of the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely
program due to its opposition to final disposal of
nuclear waste in a geological disposal facility16.
Announcing the decision, Cabinet Secretary for
Rural Affairs and the Environment Richard
Lochhead said: "This out of sight out of mind policy
should not extend to Scotland." [Back]

References
1. Harwell project profiles: BEPO British
Experimental Pile O, UKAEA; David Fishlock,
Curtains for BEPO, Nuclear Engineering
International (February 2009) [Back]
2. Babcock International Group PLC Acquisition of
UKAEA Limited Class 3 Transaction, Babcock
International Group (18 September 2009) [Back]
3. Culture clubbed, Nuclear Engineering
International (April 2007) [Back]
4. An Investigation into the Falsification of Pellet
Diameter Data in the MOX Demonstration Facility
at the BNFL Sellafield Site and the Effect of this on

the Safety of MOX Fuel in Use, UK Health and

Safety Executive (February 2000) [Back]
5. The Future of the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) May
2010, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority news
release (12 May 2010) [Back]
6. Managing the Nuclear Legacy A strategy for
action, Department for Trade and Industry (July
2002) [Back]
7. Energy white paper, Our energy future creating
a low carbon economy, Cm 5761, Department for
Trade and Industry (February 2003) [Back]
8. Toshiba Completes Westinghouse Acquisition,
Toshiba Corporation press release (17 October
2006) [Back]
9. NDA secures new delivery partner for 22 billion
Sellafield Ltd contract, Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority news release (24 November 2008) [Back]
10. Risk Management: The Nuclear Liabilities of
British Energy plc, National Audit Office, 6 February
2004 (ISBN: 0102927138) [Back]
11. Centrica to invest in EDF nuclear business in
the UK; EDF to acquire controlling stake in SPE
from Centrica, Centrica news release (11 May
2009). The same news release was also published
by EDF on the same date. [Back]
12. Reactor closure marks a first for the UK nuclear
sector, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority news
release (15 December 2010) [Back]
13. Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals
for developing a policy for managing solid
radioactive waste in the UK, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Department
of the Environment; National Assembly for Wales;
and Scottish Executive (September 2001) [Back]
14. Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely:
CoRWMs recommendations to Government,
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

(July 2006). The document is also available in Word

format. [Back]
15. Response to the Report and Recommendations
from the Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management (CoRWM), UK Government and the
devolved administrations (October 2006) [Back]
16. Ministers decline to endorse deep storage,
Scottish Government news release (25 June 2007)
[Back]
17. Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A
Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, Cm 7386 (June 2008) [Back]

General sources
United Kingdom (part1), Nuclear Engineering
International (March 1998)
Andy Munn, UKAEA's first 50 years, Nuclear
Engineering International (November 2004)
Rob Cochrane, The CEGB Story, Portsmouth
Publishing and Printing Ltd (March 1990)
S. H. Wearne and R. H. Bird, UK Experience of
Consortia Engineering for Nuclear Power Stations,
School of Mechanical, Aerospace & Civil
Engineering, University of Manchester (2009,
updated February 2010)
Simon Taylor, Privatisation and Financial Collapse in
the Nuclear Industry: The Origins and Causes of the
British Energy Crisis of 2002, Routledge, July 2007
(ISBN: 9780415431750)
Ian Jackson, Utilities signal preferred UK sites,
Nuclear Engineering International (April 2009)
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority website
(www.nda.gov.uk)
Nuclear Liabilities Fund website (www.nlf.uk.net)
Magnox Ltd website (www.magnoxsouthsites.com)

UK government gives go-ahead for

Hinkley Point C
15 September 2016

The UK government today announced its approval for the

construction of two EPR reactors at the Hinkley Point C
nuclear power plant in Somerset after reaching a new
agreement in principle with EDF. However, it has imposed
certain conditions for foreign investment in future British
nuclear power plant projects.

An artist's impression of how Hinkley Point C could appear (Image: EDF Energy)

Hinkley Point C received a long-awaited and positive final

investment decision (FID) from the EDF board on 28 July, only for
the UK government to immediately postpone signing its supporting
agreements. Prime Minister Theresa May said a review of the deal
would be carried out before the government commits its support.
Under a deal agreed with EDF Energy last October, China General
Nuclear will take a 33.5% stake in the project. In addition, the two
companies plan to develop projects to build new plants at Sizewell
in Suffolk and Bradwell in Essex, the latter using Chinese reactor
technology.
Today the government announced it has signed a revised agreement
in principle with EDF for the project. While the agreed contract for
difference (CfD) - the guaranteed price for electricity generated by
Hinkley Point C - still stands, the government has imposed what it
calls "significant new safeguards for future foreign investment in
critical infrastructure".
In a statement, Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business, Energy
and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), said: "Having thoroughly reviewed
the proposal for Hinkley Point C, we will introduce a series of
measures to enhance security and will ensure Hinkley cannot
change hands without the Government's agreement."
According to the statement from BEIS, "The government will be able
to prevent the sale of EDFs controlling stake prior to the completion
of construction, without the prior notification and agreement of
ministers." It noted that existing legal powers, and the new legal
framework, will mean the government is able to intervene in the
sale of EDF's stake once Hinkley is operational.
The new legal framework for future foreign investment in UK critical
infrastructure will mean the government will take a "special share"
in all future nuclear new build projects. This, it says, will ensure
significant stakes cannot be sold without its knowledge or consent.
Developers or operators of nuclear sites will be required to inform
the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) of any change of ownership

or part-ownership. The government will then "advise or direct the

ONR to take action to protect national security as a result of a
change in ownership".
This approach, the government said, will bring the UK's policy
framework for ownership and control of critical infrastructure "into
line with other major economies".
The government's announcement of its approval for the Hinkley
project coincided with the opening today of the World Nuclear
Association's 41st Annual Symposium in London.

EDF welcomes decision

The announcement was welcomed by EDF. "The approval of this
construction project for two nuclear reactors on the Hinkley Point
site in Somerset in the South West of England marks the conclusion
of ten years of preparation and rigorous planning." It added, "An
exchange of letters between EDF and the British authorities will
render the discussions that took place over the last few days, to
formalise their wish to take into account the EDF's commitment to
retain control of HPC project."
EDF CEO Jean-Bernard Lvy said: "The decision of the British
government to approve the construction of Hinkley Point C marks
the relaunch of nuclear in Europe. It demonstrates the UK's desire
to lead the fight against climate change through the development of
low carbon electricity."
Vincent de Rivaz, CEO of EDF Energy said: "Today's announcement
is good news for British consumers, a huge boost for British industry
and a major step forward in the fight against climate change." He
added, "We will take the risk and responsibility to deliver Hinkley
Point C and provide the UK with the reliable low carbon electricity it
needs. The experience and expertise gained from restarting new
nuclear build in the UK will help following projects be cheaper."

International cooperation
Agneta Rising, World Nuclear Association director general, said
today's announcement is "good news for nuclear energy in the UK
and Europe and that the Hinkley Point C project demonstrates the
value of international cooperation in new nuclear build".
Hasan Murat Mercan, chair of the organising committee for the 23rd
World Energy Congress, said the UK governments decision to go
ahead with Hinkley Point C is essential but at the same time just
one piece of the puzzle for the energy sector.
"While the UK has been debating the merits of Hinkley Point C,
construction has begun on around 60 reactors in 13 countries,

including two in Turkey - some of which will be completed by 2017,"

Mercan said.
For nuclear energy to increase its share of the generation market,
simply expanding infrastructure is not enough. There needs to be
the political will to foster innovation and a sympathetic policy and
investment environment for this to succeed.
Nuclear is "high on the agenda" of the Congress, which takes place
next month in Istanbul, Mercan said.

Horizon and NuGeneration

Owners of two other nuclear power plant projects in the UK
welcomed the news of the government's support for Hinkley.
Horizon plans to deploy the UK Advanced Boiling Water Reactor at
two sites - Wylfa Newydd, which is on the Isle of Anglesey, and
Oldbury-on-Severn, in South Gloucestershire. Established in 2009
and acquired by Hitachi in November 2012, Horizon aims to provide
at least 5.4 GWe of new capacity, expecting the first unit at Wylfa to
be operating in the first half of the 2020s.
Horizon CEO Duncan Hawthorne said: "The emphasis must now be
on delivering the government's vision of a wider nuclear program in
the UK and we remain focused on continuing to make strong
progress with our lead Wylfa Newydd project. This includes clearing
our tried and tested reactor technology for deployment in the UK,
consulting across North Wales on our plans and the huge economic
opportunities they will deliver, and working with Government on a
deal that delivers at a fair and acceptable price for all."
NuGen, the UK joint venture between Japan's Toshiba and France's
Engie, said its Moorside project remains unaffected by the outcome
of the EU referendum. NuGen plans to build a nuclear power plant
of up to 3.8 GWe gross capacity at the West Cumbria site using
AP1000 nuclear reactor technology provided by Westinghouse
Electric Company, a group company of Toshiba.
NuGen CEO Samson said: "The news is positive for the UK nuclear
new build market, where developers such as NuGen are investing
heavily in delivering the next generation of low carbon power for the
UK. It demonstrates the viability of new nuclear investment in the
UK, based on the government's Electricity Market Reform Program
and is welcome evidence of the UK government's commitment to
new nuclear as an essential part of the UK energy mix." He added:
"Hinkley Point C is the start of the nuclear new build renaissance in
the UK, of which NuGen are an integral part, and today's decision is
an essential step towards strengthening the UK security of supply.
New nuclear will also help the UK to meet its domestic and
international commitments to a low carbon economy."

Trade associations

Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association

said the UK's nuclear supply chain is "ready to deliver this important
national infrastructure project". He added, "The positive industrial
impact of this project will be enormous with contracts already in
place for Welsh steel, pumps made by Scottish companies and
nuclear components from across England's industrial belt. Hinkley is
a truly national project which represents an array of opportunities
for the supply chain and a secure foundation for the government's
industrial strategy."
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said the government's
support of Hinkley is good news for the UK's energy future as well
as supporting jobs and growth across the South West of England
and elsewhere in the country.
Josh Hardie, CBI deputy director-general, said: "Investors are
hungry for further signs from the government that the UK is open
for business. Pressing ahead with major infrastructure decisions
such as giving clarity to around the next Contracts for Difference
auction and the post-2020 Levy Control Framework, and expanding
runway capacity in the South East would give a real boost to their
confidence in the UK in the long-run."
Jenifer Baxter, head of energy and environment at the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, welcomed the government's decision, but
said: "It is important to note that this is not the end but merely a
small step at the start of securing our low carbon energy
requirements for the future." She said, "It is now more important
than ever to focus on attracting business and foreign investment to
our nation following the Brexit vote. The Government must work
with industry to ensure we have modern, reliable and secure
infrastructure, be it in energy, transport or communications."
Phil Whitehurst, national officer for construction at GMB, the union
for energy and construction workers, said, "Not only will the 18
billion Hinkley Point C project provide 7% of the UK's energy needs
and create at least 25,000 jobs during its construction and another
900 during operation, but 65% of the project's construction value
will be placed with the UK supply chain." He added, "Along with this
is an agreed minimum 1000 apprenticeship and adult trainees,
creating a skill training level that will put other UK projects to
shame.

UK site investigations nearing

completion

26 September 2016

Extensive geotechnical and geophysical site characterization

at the Moorside site in West Cumbria, UK, will be mostly
complete by the end of the year, according to geotechnical
survey specialists Fugro. The campaign has included onshore
and offshore geological investigations.

Onshore seismic investigations for the Moorside project (Image: Fugro)

The survey work is being carried out to facilitate NuGeneration's

(NuGen's) proposed construction of a new nuclear power plant at
Moorside, near the Sellafield site. Including both marine surveys
and onshore drilling, it is one of the largest UK site investigations to
be let as a single package, according to Fugro.
Onshore and offshore characterization work has involved
geotechnical, hydrological, topographical, geophysical and geoenvironmental data acquisition with the aim of providing sufficient
geological and geotechnical information to inform the detailed
design of foundations and ancillary structures and to determine
tunnel alignments. The data gathered from the surveys will also be
used to support licensing, planning applications and other consents
for the planned power station.
Five vessels have taken part in marine surveys that began in
December 2015 and have included bathymetric surveys, borehole
studies and seismic surveys.
The onshore drilling program has involved the drilling of 300
boreholes at depths of up to 220 metres to gather hydrogeological
data, extract rock samples and carry out seismic studies.
Data from the land-based and marine studies will be used to
provide a continuous "land-to-sea" profile to inform the
infrastructure design and construction process. The land-based site
characterization will be supplemented by drilling and groundwater
monitoring to support radiological screening undertaken by Amec
Foster Wheeler.
NuGen, the UK joint venture between Japan's Toshiba and France's
Engie, plans to build a nuclear power plant of up to 3.8 GWe gross
capacity at Moorside using Westinghouse AP1000 reactor
technology.
Global geotechnical, survey, subsea and geosciences company
Fugro's UK geotech companies were integrated into Fugro
GeoServices Ltd last year. The company's facility for over-water
drilling and marine construction equipment gained Fit For Nuclear
(F4N) status from the UK's Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing
Research Centre. The F4N award shows that a technology supplier

meets an appropriate manufacturing and quality management

standard for nuclear work, as assessed to internationally respected
criteria.
Fugro has also recently carried out marine site characterization
works for Horizon Nuclear Power's proposed Wylfa Newydd nuclear
site on the isle of Anglesey.

Future nuclear supply chain worth

billions, report finds
14 September 2016

Nuclear power plant construction, long-term plant operation

and decommissioning all offer potential multi-billion dollar
markets over the next two decades, according to a newly
released supply chain report from the World Nuclear
Association.
With nuclear power generating worldwide revenues of about $300
billion a year for electricity utilities, The World Nuclear Supply Chain
Outlook 2035 provides a market-oriented view of challenges and
opportunities under three scenarios. In the reference scenario, the
number of nuclear reactors grows from 444 operating reactors, as
of July 2016, to 462 by 2025, and 547 by 2035. The upper case
scenario sees a rise to 530 by 2025 and 720 by 2035, while the
lower scenario sees little new construction and a fall to 362 units by
2035.
Under the reference case, revenues from operating nuclear power
plants are expected to grow by 2.8% per year over the next 20
years to reach some $500 billion a year, with 62% of the growth
occurring in the emerging industrial economies (the non-OECD area,
including China). Investment in new nuclear build to 2035 is of the
order of $1.5 trillion, with significant international procurement of
$24-30 billion a year after 2025 (up from about $6-10 billion a year
currently).
The value of the investment required to keep existing reactors in
long-term operation could amount to $50-100 billion, with about $4
billion per year in international procurement.
The market for decommissioning is also substantial, with
decommissioning work on projects involving immediate dismantling
by 2035 potentially worth up to $111 billion. This includes at least
$12.4 billion as the estimated cost for cleaning up the Fukushima
Daiichi site, and at least $24.2 billion for decommissioning as
Germany moves to phase out its nuclear power plants.
Eleven consolidated technology vendors from Canada, China,
France, India, Japan, Russia and the USA today offer their services
across much of the nuclear fuel cycle, and other significant
technology vendors - such as BWX Technologies, Doosan and OMZSkoda - are internationally active. Each has built up a supply chain
that is increasingly global in scope, and the leading vendors are, for

the most part, internationally diversified in terms of their corporate

make-up and supplier base, the report notes.

Choke points relieved

Competitive pressures has encourage localization of manufacturing,
joint ventures and international procurement, resulting in materials,
semi-processed and complete fabrications perhaps crossing several
borders before reaching their final destination for assembly and
installation.
A competitive global market exists for the construction and
procurement of nuclear power plants. Several factors, including the
cancellation of some planned plants following the Fukushima Daiichi
accident, investment by existing suppliers and the transfer of
technology and localization, particularly to China, mean that "choke
points" in the supply chain identified a decade ago - notably in
terms of heavy forging capacity - do not exist at present.
Bottlenecks could, however, re-emerge in the event of multiple
reactor orders being issued at the same time.
"Globalization has become as much part of the scene for nuclear as
it is for other industries," the report notes. "The World Nuclear
Association believes that the system for import and export between
countries should be reviewed to streamline procedures while
preserving a sound safeguards regime," it says.

Export control
The existing export control regime places the nuclear industry at a
disadvantage in comparison with industries such as aerospace and
defence, the report notes. Most export control authorities do not
issue general export licences for nuclear-related items.
Instead, the report calls for the degree of scrutiny accorded to
nuclear technology to be risk-based. "A nuclear power reactor poses
a low technology risk with respect to proliferation. The same is true
for components, spare parts, and maintenance or repair services for
an existing nuclear facility that is subject to international
safeguards. Under a risk-based approach the export of components
and complete power reactors should be made possible under
general authorization, without a prior individual licence, to another
country that is a participating state in the Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG), subject to notification being provided to the national
authorities of the exporting and importing countries concerned.
Within free trade areas, like the European Unions single market,
shipments should be notifiable but otherwise unrestricted," it says.
Enrichment and reprocessing technologies are associated with a
higher proliferation risk and there is a "greater justification" for
licensing such transactions through individual export licences.
"Export control authorities should be able to recognize good private
sector practice by extending authorized (or trusted) economic

operator status to companies that apply diligently a robust and

comprehensive internal compliance program to their operations,"
the report notes. "In the longer run, international trade and
investment agreements can help to lower the technical and
administrative barriers to trade."
Greg Kaser, senior project manager at the World Nuclear
Association, said: "The Supply Chain report supplements and
expands on the World Nuclear Association's biennial nuclear fuel
report, looking in more depth at the supply side of the question and
taking into account developments seen since the publication of last
year's edition of the Nuclear Fuel Report."

UK new nuclear developers pay

tribute to EDF
19 September 2016

The UK government's approval of EDF Energy's Hinkley Point

C project has "blazed the trail" for other nuclear new build
developers at home and abroad, delegates at the World
Nuclear Association's Annual Symposium heard last week.

EDF Energys de Rivaz (Image: World Nuclear Association)

The French company plans to build two EPR reactors at the site in
Somerset, with China General Nuclear (CGN) owning a 33.5% stake
in the project. The two companies also plan to develop projects to
build new plants at Sizewell in Suffolk and Bradwell in Essex, the
latter using Chinese reactor technology.
Referring to the UK government's decision last week, Vincent de
Rivaz, EDF Energy CEO, told the Symposium in London: "It is truly
an historic moment. It marks the relaunch of nuclear in Europe and
it will transform the prospects for our industry. It is excellent news

for British consumers. Just as it is for British and French industry.

And by reconfirming the role of nuclear in the battle against climate
change, it has global implications."

Political risk
EDF Energy and its Chinese partner "understood" why the new
government under Prime Minister Theresa May "took the time to
review the project", de Rivaz said, even though the Hinkley project
had received a long-awaited and positive final investment decision
(FID) from the EDF board on 28 July.
He told the Symposium: "This process has strengthened UK
industrial strategy and governance. These elements are good for
this industry. They provide stability and clarity, which is precisely
what investors need. We should all welcome the new legal
framework for British critical infrastructure. It is entirely consistent
with our views and it will benefit the projects under our partnership
with CGN, as set out in the Strategic Investment Agreement signed
last year in October 2015, including Sizewell C and Bradwell B."

NuGens Samson (Image: World

Nuclear Association)

Unlike state-owned EDF Energy and CGN, the other UK new nuclear
developers - Horizon Nuclear Power and NuGeneration - are private
investor vehicles. But approval of Hinkley provides the confidence in
the UK market that potential investors need, their chief executives
said.
Duncan Hawthorne, CEO of Horizon Nuclear Power, which plans to
deploy the UK Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) at two sites
- Wylfa Newydd and Oldbury-on-Severn - said: "If you're in the
nuclear business, you're in a political business, so getting a positive
decision means that the policy and support for nuclear is still there,
which is good. And obviously Hinkley, to be fair, they have blazed
the trail on this. The government had an idea of new build, but it
really only comes to fruition when you negotiate conditions and EDF
had to take the blows for a lot of us that are coming in behind
them."
Established in 2009 and acquired by Hitachi in November 2012,
Horizon aims to provide at least 5.4 GWe of new capacity, expecting
the first unit at Wylfa Newydd, on the Isle of Anglesey, to be

operating in the first half of the 2020s.

On the potential impact of the UK's referendum vote in June to
leave the European Union, Hawthorne said free trade deals, foreign
exchange rates and import tariffs "will be factored in" to new build
projects "but not right now". He added: "These plants are a 60-year
proposition, so you have to be able to withstand lots of twists and
turns. Ultimately, if you've built a good project and you've got a
good contract, you should be able to withstand those things."
Tom Samson, NuGen CEO, referred to the importance of the
Contract-for-Difference (CfD) mechanism the government under the
previous prime minister, David Cameron, had already agreed for
Hinkley, as well as of the new government's decision that Hinkley
would not be permitted to change ownership without its
agreement. May's government has left unchanged the CfD strike
price of 92.50 per megawatt hour.
Samson said: "Discussion of the golden share for the UK
government stake in these projects going forward - this is welcome.
It further improves our 'financability' chances [and is] a natural
evolution."
NuGen, the UK joint venture between Japan's Toshiba and France's
Engie, plans to build a nuclear power plant of up to 3.8 GWe gross
capacity at Moorside, in West Cumbria, using AP1000 nuclear
reactor technology provided by Westinghouse Electric Company, a
group company of Toshiba.

Record to build on
Hawthorne, who was executive director of British Energy prior to
joining AmerGen in the USA and then Bruce Power in Canada, as
their respective CEOs, applauded EDF Energy's record with the UK's
existing advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) fleet.

Horizons Hawthorne (Image: World

Nuclear Association)

He said: "It was 1996 when I left the UK and at that time it became

obvious that we had to replace the existing nuclear plants, but we

couldn't get a [government] decision taken then, so I thought I was
leaving for three years and then I'd be back and it ended up being
20 years. There's still that very obvious gap to be filled and I have
to say that we are all very fortunate that EDF has managed to
extend the life of the existing fleet because I can tell you that, when
I left, I thought all of the existing AGRs would be gone by 2012, so
it's to their great credit that they've created this opportunity for us
to respond."
As well as the government's go-ahead for Hinkley, de Rivaz was also
able to announce the world record - 940 days of continuous
operation that has been achieved at EDF Energy's Heysham 2
AGR.
He said this is "just one example of the outstanding performance" of
EDF Energy's 15 nuclear reactors in the UK. "Since the acquisition of
the UK fleet in 2009 we have increased safety performance by 51%.
We have increased output by 50% - a personal best we plan to beat
in 2016. And we have safely extended the lives of our AGRs by 25%
- eight years on average. The majority of our existing nuclear
capacity will now still be operating in 2025 as Hinkley Point C comes
online."
The two EPRs that EDF Energy and its Chinese partner will build at
Hinkley Point C will be the fifth and sixth EPRs in the world. De
Rivaz said they "already integrate all the lessons learnt" from its
EPR projects under construction at Flamanville, in France, and
Taishan, in China. Flamanville "is now on track" and Taishan "is a
success". The testing program for the Taishan EPR is "running
smoothly", he added, with cold testing complete and preparations
for hot testing underway.
Four Chinese AP1000s are scheduled to be in operation by the end
of 2017. Sanmen unit 1 is expected to be the first AP1000 to begin
operating, followed by Haiyang 1. And four AP1000 reactors are
being built in the USA - two each at Vogtle and Summer.
The ABWR design was developed jointly by GE, Hitachi and Toshiba,
prior to the merger of GE and Hitachi, and is derived from GE's BWR
concept. Four units - Kashiwazaki Kariwa units 6 and 7, Hamaoka 5
and Shika 2 - have been built and operated commercially in Japan.
ABWRs are now offered in slightly different versions by GE-Hitachi,
Hitachi-GE and Toshiba.

Funding strategy
The CfD element of new energy projects in the UK helps to provide
a "level playing field" for nuclear, is aimed at "correcting the broken
markets that exist" and its 35-year tenure "provides for stability"
amid market volatility, Samson said.
The strategy of deploying the AP1000 in the UK and Toshiba's

majority stake in NuGen is a "bold move" and reflects the Japanese

company's confidence in the UK market as a place to invest, he
said. NuGen is exploring "multiple options" on funding, which
include export credit based lending "that can help provide a low cost
of capital to allow these projects to go forward", he said. "We're
definitely looking to add to that portfolio of investors and lenders
and other equity providers in due course."
Samson joined NuGen from Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation
based in Abu Dhabi where, as chief operating officer, he helped
develop the company delivering new nuclear units at Barakah,
which will supply up to 25% of the Emirate's electricity by 2020.
To attract investors, new build developers need to demonstrate that
projects will be delivered on time and to budget, Hawthorne said.
Other parts of the funding equation include regulatory assessment
of a reactor design.
UK regulators said in July they expect to complete the Generic
Design Assessment (GDA) process for the Westinghouse AP1000
and Hitachi-GE's UK Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (UK ABWR) in
March and December of 2017, respectively.
Completing the GDA process is "a kind of kitemark that you can
take to other parts of the world because it is a good regulatory
regime", Hawthorne said.
Horizon expects to have all the required licences and permissions in
place for the Wylfa Newydd project by 2018.

National and local

The three CEOs stressed the importance of their projects to the UK
supply chain as well as to the specific regions where their projects
are based.
De Rivaz said: "We have worked with people and organisations
across the South West for years to ensure they benefit, whether in
terms of the local community, skills, education, jobs, the supply
chain and the regional economy as a whole. We are on track to
create 1000 apprenticeships during construction. We have awarded
South West contracts with combined contract values of more than
435 million, creating 650 jobs.
"More than 2000 companies across the UK have registered an
interest in supplying the project alongside the Somerset companies
who have registered. They are now part of the nuclear supply chain
and are winning contracts. Like Express Reinforcements from
Swansea, preferred bidder to supply 200,000 tonnes of reinforcing
steel. That's 25 times more steel than was used in London's
Olympic stadium. Or Harris Pye from Cowbridge, winning a contract
for steel tanks - their first nuclear contract for many years. The
success of companies like this is the key objective for us. And today
I can reconfirm that we expect 64% of the construction spend to go
to UK companies."

Even though Hinkley Point C will be the first nuclear power plant to
be built in the UK for a generation, Hawthorne said he is confident
about the country's ability to provide the skilled workforce required
for all future new build projects.
"I have no doubt that the supply chain will respond," he said.
"People originally thought we would struggle to find the quality of
stainless steel welders in the UK and I say: 'Well, have you seen the
oil and gas industry, which is where those skills sets are?' If the oil
and gas industry was in boom times and we were also doing our
projects, well, that's not the case here. People will move where the
work is." The 10,000 workers that are expected to be needed during
peak construction at Wylfa Newydd "is a figure that has been
bandied around, but it depends," he said.
"We might decide to build our reactors in component form and
move them to the area, so there are lots of ways to do it as part of
the plan that were looking at now."
With the Moorside site located near Sellafield - home to the UK's
long-standing nuclear industry - NuGen will be able to draw on a
skilled workforce "along the North West corridor", Samson said.
NuGen plans to make a site licence application for Moorside "in the
coming months", he added.
Similarly, the local community at Wylfa Newydd is mostly predisposed to nuclear power because it has experience of it already,
Hawthorne said. Wylfa unit 1 - the world's last operating Magnox
reactor - closed in December last year. The two units at Wylfa were
both scheduled to shut down at the end of 2012, but Magnox Ltd which manages and operates the plant on behalf of its owner, the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority - decided to shut down unit 2 in
April 2012 so that unit 1 could continue operating in order to fully
utilize existing stocks of fuel, which is no longer being
manufactured.
Having led Canada's Bruce Power since its creation 15 years before,
Hawthorne said he was familiar with establishing good relations with
"first nation groups". Horizon is in the middle of the second stage of
its public consultation at Wylfa Newydd.
"In my view there is nothing more important than the social licence.
We're going to play a very active role in the community for decades
to come, so it's entirely appropriate that you focus on the
community you're going to impact most. You're going to build a big
industrial facility generally in a rural community, so you're going to
have a very impactful social, environmental and economic thing. If
you look at the Welsh context, of course Angelsey are concerned
about maintaining language and culture, but coming from Canada, I
can tell you that first nation groups feel exactly the same, so there's
nothing new to me in that," he said.
"The thing that people want here is that you're going to create
economic opportunities in the community and be thoughtful to their

environment and culture. I don't think people are really that

concerned about nuclear safety because Wylfa has had a plant for a
long time there and people have understood the high regulatory
standards. It's more about bringing thousands of people into a
community that is native Welsh speaking, and we have to be very
mindful of that."

Legacy
Samson also noted the importance of respecting the natural
environment - Moorside is on the edge of the Lake District, a
national park that attracts thousands of tourists from the UK and
overseas every year.
"With a project of this scale and with the lasting benefits it brings
from climate change and security of supply perspectives, the
quantum of the investment and the opportunity to create jobs is
huge," he said. "But we've got to look beyond that and think how
we can impact society and communities [] in a way that's sensitive
to a beautiful area." Noting the architectural status of Battersea
Power Station in London, Samson said, "It's incumbent on us to
create something iconic".
Hawthorne, who had announced his retirement in March, prior to
taking his new role with Horizon, said he felt a debt to the UK's
nuclear engineering forebears for the 45-year long career he has
enjoyed. Stressing the importance of their legacy in creating an
industry that has for decades provided reliable and low-carbon
electricity, he said: "We owe it to them to keep that market share
and to deliver that same future, whether or not we get full
recognition for it. We're not going to get unanimous consent; that's
never happened. But we can all sleep at night knowing that we
made a difference. So when I finish it will be on the basis of the fact
this industry will outlive me and my grandchildren. That's what
success looks like."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-UK-new-nuclear-developerspay-tribute-to-EDF-19091601.html

Westinghouse balances new and

existing fleet needs
19 September 2016

Two Westinghouse AP1000s are likely to start up within a

year, with hot functional tests at the first-of-a-kind reactor
at Sanmen in China on course to finish next month, interim
president and CEO Jos Emeterio Gutirrez told delegates at
the World Nuclear Association's Annual Symposium held in

London last week. Fuel loading at Sanmen is expected to

take place before the end of the year.

Jos Emeterio Gutirrez (L) at the Annual Symposium (Image: World Nuclear Association)

Hot functional testing is also under way at the second AP1000,

Haiyang 1, and is making faster progress thanks to the experience
and lessons learned at Sanmen 1. Two units are under construction
at each site.
"Hopefully, very soon we will have four AP1000s connected to the
grid in China," Gutirrez said.
Lessons learned from the Chinese AP1000 projects are also being
applied to the AP1000s under construction in the USA. These units,
at VC Summer and Vogtle, are about two years behind the Chinese
plants, Gutirrez said. Summer 2 passed a major milestone recently
with the installation of its reactor pressure vessel, and Gutirrez
said a similar milestone would be reached at Vogtle 3 "within
weeks".
Westinghouse is "very optimistic", he said, about the prospect of
AP1000 construction in India: "There is strong commitment from
the government of India, specifically from Prime Minister Modi, to
grow nuclear in India." He cited Modi's public statement, made
during a visit to Washington DC earlier this year, that he was
"minded to support" Westinghouse's project. Working with Indian
partners, this would see construction of six AP1000s with a
commitment to having an EPC contract in place by June 2017.
A site has already been allocated, and negotiations are ongoing with
customers and partners in India, Gutirrez said. "Hopefully by this
time next year, we will be talking about a real project, and a project
under construction," he said.
Westinghouse's global reach has enabled it to transfer and share
both resources and experience between its projects in China, the
USA, India and the UK, he said. The AP1000 design is approaching

the end of the UK regulatory generic design assessment (GDA)

process, which it is expected to complete in the first quarter of
2017.

SMR excitement
As well as the AP1000 - which NuGen plans to build at Moorside in
West Cumbria - Westinghouse has also proposed its small modular
reactor (SMR) for use in the UK. The UK government earlier this
year announced a competition to identify the best value SMR for
possible future deployment in the country. Completion of the
AP1000 GDA would be a "very important milestone" and
Westinghouse is "very excited" about its SMR, Gutirrez said.
The Westinghouse SMR would benefit from the company's
experience of licensing a reactor in the UK, he added. It
incorporates many of the passive safety features from the AP1000
which have already been licensed, and the reactor is therefore not
entirely a first-of-a-kind design using new technology, he said. He
also noted that Westinghouse has a large footprint in the UK, with
fuel production facilities at Springfields that have already been
qualified to manufacture SMR fuel, and an established supply chain.
These and other considerations make development and deployment
of SMR technology in the UK a "real opportunity" in the short term,
he said.
While working with customers to maximise localisation in their
nuclear supply chain, Westinghouse's global reach and flexibility
could further leverage opportunities for increased efficiencies,
Gutirrez said. This could be achieved by combining resources and
bringing in global experience and ready-qualified suppliers, where
appropriate.

Existing fleet
While new build was "wonderful," Guitrrez said Westinghouse
remained focused on providing support and services to keep the
world's existing nuclear fleet in operation. "We cannot forget that
we have more than 400 reactors in operation today [] Those
reactors must continue operating safely and economically," he said.
He confirmed that Westinghouse is looking to invest in technologies
and "new ideas" in the decontamination and decommissioning
(D&D) area. "Unfortunately, the D&D business is growing," he said,
referencing recent nuclear power plant closures. He said it was
"important to recognise" that the nuclear industry is expected to
restore and clean its retired facilities and sites, to protect the
environment and to "take care" of all of its waste. "There are
technologies, there are solutions, and Westinghouse is working on
them," he said.

Terrestrial Energy to complete US

loan guarantee application
14 September 2016

Terrestrial Energy USA has been invited by the US

Department of Energy (DOE) to submit the second part of its
application for a US federal loan guarantee to support the
licensing and construction of its Integrated Molten Salt
Reactor (IMSR).

IMSR nuclear island (Image: Terrestrial Energy)

The company is applying for a loan guarantee of between $800

million to $1.2 billion to support financing of a project to license,
construct and commission the first US IMSR. Idaho National
Laboratory has been identified as a lead candidate site for the first
190 MWe commercial plant.
Duke to advise Terrestrial
The USA's largest electric utility, Duke Energy, has joined Terrestrial Energy's
corporate industrial advisory board. Members of the board already include
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Ontario Power Generation, Public Service
Enterprise Group and Energy Northwest.

The US DOE's loan guarantee program supports the financing of

projects employing innovative advanced energy technologies that
avoid, reduce, or sequester anthropogenic emission of greenhouse
gases. Terrestrial Energy USA applied for a guarantee under DOE's
$12.6 billion solicitation for loan guarantees for the deployment of
advanced nuclear energy projects, issued in 2014. The DOE's Loan
Programs Office has now evaluated Part I of Terrestrial Energy
USA's application and invited the company to submit the second
part.
Molten salt reactors use fuel dissolved in a molten fluoride or

chloride salt which functions as both the fuel (producing the heat)
and the coolant (transporting the heat away and ultimately to the
power plant).This means that such a reactor could not suffer from a
loss of coolant leading to a meltdown. Terrestrial's IMSR integrates
the primary reactor components, including primary heat exchangers
to secondary clean salt circuit, in a sealed and replaceable core
vessel. It is designed as a modular reactor for factory fabrication,
and could be used for electricity production and industrial process
heat generation.
Earlier this year, Terrestrial Energy USA parent, Canada-based
Terrestrial Energy Inc, announced its plans to engage with the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in a pre-licensing design
review, a first step towards an eventual licence application.

Future nuclear supply chain worth

billions, report finds
14 September 2016

Nuclear power plant construction, long-term plant operation

and decommissioning all offer potential multi-billion dollar
markets over the next two decades, according to a newly
released supply chain report from the World Nuclear
Association.
With nuclear power generating worldwide revenues of about $300
billion a year for electricity utilities, The World Nuclear Supply Chain
Outlook 2035 provides a market-oriented view of challenges and
opportunities under three scenarios. In the reference scenario, the
number of nuclear reactors grows from 444 operating reactors, as
of July 2016, to 462 by 2025, and 547 by 2035. The upper case
scenario sees a rise to 530 by 2025 and 720 by 2035, while the
lower scenario sees little new construction and a fall to 362 units by
2035.
Under the reference case, revenues from operating nuclear power
plants are expected to grow by 2.8% per year over the next 20
years to reach some $500 billion a year, with 62% of the growth
occurring in the emerging industrial economies (the non-OECD area,
including China). Investment in new nuclear build to 2035 is of the
order of $1.5 trillion, with significant international procurement of
$24-30 billion a year after 2025 (up from about $6-10 billion a year
currently).
The value of the investment required to keep existing reactors in
long-term operation could amount to $50-100 billion, with about $4
billion per year in international procurement.
The market for decommissioning is also substantial, with
decommissioning work on projects involving immediate dismantling
by 2035 potentially worth up to $111 billion. This includes at least
$12.4 billion as the estimated cost for cleaning up the Fukushima
Daiichi site, and at least $24.2 billion for decommissioning as

Germany moves to phase out its nuclear power plants.

Eleven consolidated technology vendors from Canada, China,
France, India, Japan, Russia and the USA today offer their services
across much of the nuclear fuel cycle, and other significant
technology vendors - such as BWX Technologies, Doosan and OMZSkoda - are internationally active. Each has built up a supply chain
that is increasingly global in scope, and the leading vendors are, for
the most part, internationally diversified in terms of their corporate
make-up and supplier base, the report notes.

Choke points relieved

Competitive pressures has encourage localization of manufacturing,
joint ventures and international procurement, resulting in materials,
semi-processed and complete fabrications perhaps crossing several
borders before reaching their final destination for assembly and
installation.
A competitive global market exists for the construction and
procurement of nuclear power plants. Several factors, including the
cancellation of some planned plants following the Fukushima Daiichi
accident, investment by existing suppliers and the transfer of
technology and localization, particularly to China, mean that "choke
points" in the supply chain identified a decade ago - notably in
terms of heavy forging capacity - do not exist at present.
Bottlenecks could, however, re-emerge in the event of multiple
reactor orders being issued at the same time.
"Globalization has become as much part of the scene for nuclear as
it is for other industries," the report notes. "The World Nuclear
Association believes that the system for import and export between
countries should be reviewed to streamline procedures while
preserving a sound safeguards regime," it says.

Export control
The existing export control regime places the nuclear industry at a
disadvantage in comparison with industries such as aerospace and
defence, the report notes. Most export control authorities do not
issue general export licences for nuclear-related items.
Instead, the report calls for the degree of scrutiny accorded to
nuclear technology to be risk-based. "A nuclear power reactor poses
a low technology risk with respect to proliferation. The same is true
for components, spare parts, and maintenance or repair services for
an existing nuclear facility that is subject to international
safeguards. Under a risk-based approach the export of components
and complete power reactors should be made possible under
general authorization, without a prior individual licence, to another
country that is a participating state in the Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG), subject to notification being provided to the national
authorities of the exporting and importing countries concerned.

Within free trade areas, like the European Unions single market,
shipments should be notifiable but otherwise unrestricted," it says.
Enrichment and reprocessing technologies are associated with a
higher proliferation risk and there is a "greater justification" for
licensing such transactions through individual export licences.
"Export control authorities should be able to recognize good private
sector practice by extending authorized (or trusted) economic
operator status to companies that apply diligently a robust and
comprehensive internal compliance program to their operations,"
the report notes. "In the longer run, international trade and
investment agreements can help to lower the technical and
administrative barriers to trade."
Greg Kaser, senior project manager at the World Nuclear
Association, said: "The Supply Chain report supplements and
expands on the World Nuclear Association's biennial nuclear fuel
report, looking in more depth at the supply side of the question and
taking into account developments seen since the publication of last
year's edition of the Nuclear Fuel Report."
Researched and written
by World Nuclear News

Europe needs to revise nuclear

strategy, says committee
26 September 2016

A consultative body of the European Union has called for the

European Commission to adopt a "more comprehensive"
nuclear strategy. The European Economic and Social
Committee (EESC) says the commission should highlight
nuclear energy's positive attributes.
The European Commission is mandated by the Euratom Treaty to
periodically issue a new Nuclear Illustrative Program (PINC) to
indicate targets and a program for nuclear production and the
corresponding investment required. The Commission issued its
latest PINC in April this year.
According to the EC, there are currently 129 nuclear power reactors
in operation in the EU with a combined generating capacity of 120
GWe. Together they provide 27% of the bloc's electricity.
However, the Commission forecasts that there will be a decline in
EU nuclear capacity up to 2025 due to ageing reactors being retired
and some member states ending or reducing their reliance on
nuclear energy. With new reactors starting up and lifetime
extensions of existing reactors, this trend is expected to be
reversed by 2030. Nuclear capacity is likely to remain between 95
and 105 GWe by 2050, when it will account for about 20% of the
EU's electricity production.
Around 90% of the EU's existing reactors would be shut down by
2030 without long-term operation programs, resulting in the need

to replace large amounts of capacity, the EC said.

Having reviewed the PINC, the EESC says it is calling for
"substantial revisions to the communication notably to include
sections on the competitiveness of nuclear power, related economic
aspects, its contribution to security of supply, climate change and
carbon targets, and public acceptability, liability for nuclear
damages, transparency, and effective national dialogue."
The committee also suggests the Commission "takes this
opportunity to propose in the PINC a clear analytical process and
methodology offering a consistent, voluntary framework for nation
decision-making about the role - if any - of nuclear power in the
energy mix." It says priority should be given to improving national
coordination between EU member states, improving cooperation
between stakeholders, as well as greater transparency and public
participation in nuclear issues.
"The wide variation across the EU on public attitudes to nuclear
power is a little understood reality with significant effects on
political acceptability," the EESC said.
"The European Commission's proposal does not offer a clear and
comprehensive approach to the future of nuclear power in Europe,"
deplores EESC rapporteur Brian Curtis. "The recent Hinkley Point
controversy shows it again: after the Fukushima catastrophe, our
citizens rightly demand long-term planning for nuclear energy.
Today's EESC opinion aims at re-balancing perspectives on the
European energy mix which will ultimately help deliver on the
Energy Union commitments."
The EESC raises a number of "major uncertainties", including the
extent to which the Paris Agreement on climate change will be
implemented; the volatility of the international market in fossil
fuels; the rate at which new technologies will be applied; and even
which countries will be in the EU. It also says it is uncertain how
much influence the global economic outlook will have on the EU and
how much of the investment required in the whole energy chain will
be forthcoming.
The committee's recommendations will be presented by Pierre-Jean
Coulon, president of its energy and transport section, to the
European Nuclear Energy Forum Plenary meeting in Bratislava in
early October.
Coulon said, "I will bring to the attention to Europe's decisionmakers these concrete ideas from civil society, and I will insist on
the vital role of public understanding of the energy 'dilemma'.
Indeed, we are faced with sometimes conflicting objectives of
energy security, affordability and environmental sustainability. But
we have to embrace these aspects to shape a solid energy policy
equipped to face the challenges of our future. Transition means
time."
Researched and written
by World Nuclear News

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Europe-needs-to-revisenuclear-strategy-says-committee-2609164.html

Reactor restarts pivotal to Japan's

energy policy, says IEA
22 September 2016

The restart of Japan's nuclear power reactors is "critical" to

the success of the country's energy policy, according to the
International Energy Agency (IEA). However, it says nuclear
power can only be restored provided that the highest safety
standards can be met and public trust regained.
The IEA said Japan's energy policy has been dominated in recent
years by its efforts to overcome the impact of the March 2011
earthquake and tsunami, and the subsequent accident at the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
According to the IEA, Japan's idling of its entire fleet of nuclear
power plants after the accident left a gap of some 30% in electricity
supply. This gap has been filled with expensive, imported fossil
fuels. By the end of 2013, import dependence had risen to 94%
from 80% in 2010. Meanwhile, annual emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) from power generation had increased by 110 million tonnes.
Electricity prices increased by 16% for households and 25% for
industry. By the end of 2015, just two reactors had been restarted
and accounted for 0.9% of Japan's electricity generation that year,
compared with nuclear's share of 25.3% in 2010.
In April 2014, the government adopted the fourth Strategic Energy
Plan (SEP) and, based on that plan, the Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry prepared the 2015 Long-Term Energy Supply and
Demand Outlook to 2030, which was adopted in July 2015. This
outlook assumes Japan's nuclear generating capacity will partially
be restored, reaching 20%-22% of electricity supply by 2030. The
country also announced plans in late 2015 to reduce CO2 emissions
by 26% from 2013 to 2030.
In its report - titled Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Japan 2016
Review - the IEA said, "The most cost-effective way to begin
implementing the SEP is to restart nuclear power generation at
plants that the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) approves to be
safe."
However, the IEA warns, "If nuclear power generation falls short of
the 20%-22% target for 2030 in the 2015 Outlook, it would be very
challenging to fill the gap with renewable energy alone."
The agency says it is important for Japan to re-establish its nuclear
industry, "provided that safety is maintained at the highest
standards possible". It suggests this restart not only depends on
safety approvals, "but also on how effectively the critical issues
related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident are addressed.
These issues, it says, include the decontamination and resettlement

of affected areas and "the provision of appropriate compensation for

the serious disruption in the lives of large numbers of citizens".
Decommissioning of the damaged plant "must also continue as a
high-priority project", the IEA says.
"Of all the issues that must be addressed in order to revive Japan's
nuclear industry, the loss of public trust may be the most
challenging to overcome," according to the agency. "It is necessary
to effectively listen to and deal with questions and concerns in a
way that gradually builds trust."
The IEA recommends the government ensures the NRA has all the
resources required to do its "vital work". This includes retaining
experienced staff, recruiting new staff and providing training to
maintain expertise. It also says the government should encourage
"industry efforts to benefit from international assistance".
The report also recommends the government reviews the adequacy
of the existing funding arrangements to cover the costs of
decommissioning reactors and continue to seek "acceptable
solutions and locations" for the disposal of high-level waste.
To date, five Japanese reactors have been given final approval to
restart, although two of these have remained offline due to a legal
challenge. Another 20 reactors are moving through the restart
process, which has been prioritised to bring on the most-needed
reactors first, in the localities and prefectures more supportive of
restart.

Recognition sought for nuclear's

unique attributes
21 September 2016

The economics and financing of nuclear power projects and

the markets in which they operate was discussed last week
by a high level panel at the World Nuclear Association's
Annual Symposium. While some countries are investing in
new nuclear capacity, some market conditions are forcing
the closure of existing reactors, participants said.

The high level panel at the Symposium (Image: World Nuclear Association)

"The important point is that investment [in nuclear power projects]

is not held back everywhere and I think we can learn much from
observing where nuclear power generation and program
development is proceeding," said Ahab Abdel-Aziz, a partner with
Gowling WLG. He pointed to Russia, China, Korea, India and - until
Fukushima - Japan as examples.
These countries, Abdel-Aziz said, "have the political capacity, first
and foremost, and that means they have political support for the
creation of a hospitable environment for the program or project; a
hospitable regulatory environment; and they have the economic
capacity to dedicate billions of dollars in one fashion or another and
wait many years for the return; and again the political capacity to
stand behind the completion of that project should things go
sideways, where sometimes they do."
He noted that where nuclear projects have stalled, these are
"largely Western nations that have advanced economies that should
have the economic capacity to make this work, but they don't have
the political capacity."

European market
Kirill Komarov, first deputy director general for corporate
development and international business at Russian state nuclear
corporation Rosatom, said: "I don't think the European market is so
different in comparison with other markets for nuclear. There are a
lot of changes that we face everywhere, whether that's Europe, Asia
or Africa because if we talk about such things as public acceptance,
safety and security, cost of construction, the impact on the
environment, these are common things in all potential projects - it
doesn't matter where they are."
He said it is important for vendor countries of nuclear technology -

such as France and Russia - to continue developing nuclear. "First of

all because it's necessary to continue the level of science and
technology. It is impossible just to say we will not construct nuclear
power plants in our own countries, but we plan to build in other
countries. Most of these countries do not do this. We have a lot of
projects - eight of them - specifically in Russia." Komarov added,
"The biggest challenge for us is just the political issue. We see in
Russia and France a willingness for construction of nuclear power
plants. If we look at the rest of Europe, usually it is not what we call
'newcomer' countries, the majority of countries realising nuclear
projects are countries like Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Belarus and
the UK. These are countries with huge experience with the
necessary infrastructure, legislation, rules and experienced
regulators."
The term 'first-of-a-kind' may put off some investors, Komarov said,
"no matter how experienced" the project owners are. First-of-akind projects may incur delays, he said, but with a "serial
construction project", investors can see "successful examples of
how the same design has already been installed".

Market regulation
Edward McGinnis, deputy assistant secretary for international
nuclear energy policy and cooperation at the US Department of
Energy, said: "Whether it's a regulated market or attributes of a
regulated market, I would say attributes, at minimum, are
absolutely necessary for the successful involvement of nuclear
power, or at least it's exponentially more difficult to do it in a pure
merchant market where literally annually, quarterly, price prevails
everything.
"The attributes of nuclear energy are seen as unique: 24/7, noncarbon emitting, a 40-60 year (maybe longer) generating asset. It's
a key element more and more to environmental security, economic
security and energy security."
Nuclear's share in Europe is declining and existing plants are closing
because they cannot make a profit in the deregulated market, noted
the moderator, journalist Ann MacLachlan. The market, she said, is
over-supplied by cheap - because subsidised - generation from solar
and wind, which have grid priority. However, because renewable
energy sources need fossil fuel back-up, carbon dioxide emissions
are rising in Europe.
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy president and CEO Jay Wileman
suggested "What is really needed from an EU perspective is a
comprehensive and integrated energy policy. Something I don't
think is there yet. Whether it's an integrated resource plan or
just coherent policies in place is really key to start with."

US market

"Certainly without any meaningful credit for the zero emission

attributes of nuclear power plants in the United States, you will see
a significant amount of closures over the next certainly ten years,
but even sooner than that," said Bradley Fewell, senior vice
president of regulatory affairs and general counsel at US utility
Exelon Generation.
"We were able to get New York to recognize the zero emission
attributes of the plants in up-state New York and that was a
significant achievement." The New York State Public Service
Commission gave its formal approval last month of a Clean Energy
Standard that explicitly recognises the zero-carbon contribution of
nuclear power plants.
Fewell said he expects the plan will be implemented. "It has the
backing of the governor, as well as the Public Service Commission,
and therefore I am very optimistic. Even though there will be legal
challenges and it will be litigated for a couple of years, it will be
implemented on schedule, as well as ultimately upheld in the
courts."
But implementation of similar plans in other US states in which the
company operates will not be so easy, he said. "In Illinois, where we
have announced the retirement of a couple of nuclear power plants,
we have to deal with the legislature. And we have to deal with a
very divided legislature. We have to deal with a governor who is
aided by the leader of the House of Representatives in Illinois.
Similarly, in Pennsylvania we have to deal with the legislature. We
are making some progress there.
"Maybe the Clean Power Plan will help in particular new build
eventually, but its impact for the existing fleet is less certain."

Iran ready to share nuclear

experience
16 September 2016

Iran is ready to share its nuclear experience with other

nations in the Persian Gulf through a regional nuclear
scientific contact group, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
president Ali Akbar Salehi told the World Nuclear
Association's Annual Symposium today.
Iran's long-term energy plans recognise the importance of clean
and affordable electricity, Salehi said. The country currently has one
operating nuclear power plant, a 1000 MWe unit at Bushehr. With
demand growing at 6% per year more reactors are planned, with
desalination projects alongside them. Foundations were laid for two
new units at Bushehr on 10 September, and the country has a longterm target of 20 GWe of nuclear capacity.
The country is also looking to utilise small modular reactors (SMRs)
of up to 100 MWe for electricity production and desalination in
remote areas of the country, Salehi said, citing financing

considerations as well as the adaptability of SMRs to the country's

industrial infrastructure. SMRs would be built close to areas of
demand, saving on the costs of transmitting electricity, while their
integrated design will have enhanced safety characteristics, he said.

Expanding cooperation
Since the establishment of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA) on the peaceful use of nuclear power last year, Iran has
taken major steps to expand international nuclear cooperation
efforts, including with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"Our long-term peaceful nuclear activity embodies further
development of the entire fuel cycle, from extraction at mines, to
uranium enrichment, to fuel production, safe storage of [used] fuel,
radioactive waste management and construction of new nuclear
power plants," Salehi said.
"We would like to reiterate our readiness to share our valuable
accumulated experience in the nuclear industry with our Persian
Gulf neighbours through establishing a regional nuclear scientific
contact group," he said. The JCPOA could be used as a template to
resolve intricate regional and global issues, he said. "It is incumbent
on the international community to uphold the integrity of this
important achievement," he said, calling on all the parties to deliver
on their respective commitments.

Achieving 1000 GWe of new capacity

by 2050
16 September 2016

The nuclear industry can achieve the momentum required to

create an additional 1000 GWe of new capacity by 2050,
Agneta Rising, director general of the World Nuclear
Association, said yesterday. This target is essential, she said,
if the world is to ensure the International Energy Agency's 2
Degree Scenario on climate change.
Opening the World Nuclear Association's 41st Annual Symposium in
London, Rising referred to the IEA's annual report, Energy
Technology Perspectives 2016, which notes that connections of new
nuclear power units doubled in 2015 to ten new reactors each year
compared with five in 2014 and similar numbers in previous years.
Only nuclear power can ensure the clean, affordable and reliable
electricity needed to meet increasing global energy demand whilst
ensuring climate goals can also be achieved, Rising said.
She proposed the following schedule: 50 GWe of new capacity in
2016-2020, 125 GWe in 2021-2025 and 825 GWe in 2026-2050.
That means a yearly connection rate of 10 GWe, 25 GWe and 33
GWe, respectively.

Facts and myths

"Nuclear energy is the world's second largest energy source now

and for those countries with low emissions, nuclear is a key part. No
country in the world has decarbonised without using nuclear
energy," Rising said.
"It is quite a big task to deliver 1000 GWe of new nuclear capacity
by 2050. So this is the plan: in the coming five years we need to
deliver 10 GWe and in years after that have to step up to a 25 GWe
connection rate per year. And in the last 25 years there needs to be
an around 33 GWe per year connection rate. You can roughly say
that 1 GWe is one large reactor," she said.
"In the last 25 years we have been below a five and sometimes
down to a zero connection rate," she noted. "In 2015 it doubled to
10 GWe, but we need to double again and then again."
In the mid-80s, some 31 GWe of new nuclear capacity were
delivered and connected each year, she noted. "I am so sure that
we can do better now. We have more technologies, more
experience, more companies and a lot of need to have this lowcarbon electricity that is so reliable."
The Association's World Nuclear Performance Report 2016 shows
there have been "a lot of reactor start-ups in the last 12 months in
different parts of the world, including China, India, the USA, South
Korea and Russia", Rising said.
"Altogether they are delivering a connection rate of 11.3 GWe and
the target for this period is 10 GWe, so already in the first year now
we are delivering on that target. But there is much to do if we are
going to ramp this up," she said.
And construction periods are getting shorter. "Even in the industry, I
hear people say that nuclear has long construction times. No.
Construction times are coming down. There has been a 5.5 year
average construction time for last five years. Of course there are
examples where there have been big delays - delays in decision
making and delays in construction, but overall, on average, it's a
very great result," she said.
In addition, each reactor built is delivering more and more
electricity, she said. "The capacity factor - what you deliver
compared to what you are constructed to deliver - is climbing up. In
the 80s, it was about 60% and now it is around 80%." These
percentages are based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's
Power Reactor Information System, or PRIS, database, which
includes Japanese reactors even though they are not in operation
currently. "That means, if you look at the reactors that are running the capacity factor is above 80%," Rising said. "If you look at many
of the other energy sources, I don't think there is any that has such
high capacity factors as nuclear. For example, solar and wind have a
capacity factor of 10-15% on average."
Rising also dispelled the myth that old nuclear reactors are not as
efficient and new technology, explaining that maintenance and

upgrade work over the years has increased their capacity factor to
the same high level. "And when you have a new reactor, it has that
high capacity factor from the start," she said.
Sweden, Rising's home country, is a good example of "how quickly a
country can ramp up nuclear", she said. This fact dispels the myth
that "small countries cannot do nuclear", she said. The United Arab
Emirates is also proving that a small country can rapidly build
nuclear capacity, she added.
Regarding the levelised cost of electricity, including the system cost,
Rising said that Nuclear Energy Agency data for France, the UK, the
USA and South Korea show that, "in nearly all of these cases
nuclear is the cheapest".

Harmony
To achieve 1000 GWe of new capacity, the industry must address
the three pillars of the World Nuclear Association's Harmony
initiative, which Rising presented for the first time at the 2015
Symposium. These are a level playing field, harmonised regulatory
processes and an effective safety paradigm.
A level playing field for all low-carbon technologies would value not
only the environmental qualities of an energy source, but also its
reliability and grid system costs.
Markets should be reformed to, Rising said, to support capital
investments, include grid system costs, eliminate nuclear-only
taxes, reform subsidies, give credit for low-carbon emissions, value
24/7 reliability and support innovative finance solutions.
A level playing field for nuclear cannot be achieved as long as power
markets are distorted, Rising said, with low wholesale prices
reflecting renewables that are supported by subsidies. Current gas
prices may be low in the USA, but this does not reflect the cost of
emissions that fossil fuelled plants account for, she added.
There also needs to be enhanced standardisation; streamlined
licensing processes; harmonised and updated global codes and
standards; the enabling of international trade; as well as efficient
and effective safety regulation. In addition, nuclear innovation
requires the development and timely licensing of new technologies.
Nuclear power development has been hindered, Rising said, by
national energy policies that are not aligned. She gave nuclear
taxes in Sweden and Belgium as an example of this.
The safety paradigm means increasing genuine public wellbeing
from a societal perspective, Rising said. It also means ensuring
global nuclear safety and confidence in the management of nuclear
technology and operations.
"The alternatives to nuclear are far more dangerous - even including
accidents," Rising said. Citing a 1998 report by the Paul Scherrer
Institut, which looked at accidents related to energy facilities and

concluded that of 1943 accidents with more than 5 fatalities, hydro

was by far the most dangerous, then coal and then gas.

The benefits of standardisation for

nuclear projects
22 September 2016

The importance of standardisation in the evaluation of

reactor designs is key to making nuclear power plant
projects more efficient and cost-effective, Jerry Head, senior
vice president of regulatory affairs at GE Hitachi Nuclear
Energy told delegates at the World Nuclear Association's
41st Annual Symposium in London last week. Head outlined
seven areas where such an approach can bring harmony to
the process of managing projects from the design licensing
stage through to decommissioning.
Head looked back on the eight years since the OECD Nuclear Energy
Agency established the Multinational Design Evaluation Program
(MDEP). According to the NEA, MDEP works on the development of
"innovative approaches to leverage the resources and knowledge of
national regulatory authorities that are currently or will be tasked
with the review of new nuclear power reactor designs". The nuclear
regulatory authorities of 15 countries participate in MDEP.
The "curve of the past eight years" in MDEP shows "a way for
regulators to work together and focus on common issues," Head
said. "It's important for us as an industry to drive standardisation
wherever we can."
Where this "makes sense", he said, lies firstly with "design and
licensing efficiency".
He said: "To be able to take a licence for a reactor design to another
country without changes being made to it is obviously a lot more
efficient and cost-effective and gives you the ability to focus your
resources."
Secondly, more thorough design and safety reviews can be ensured
"if the regulators for a given country have the ability take
advantage of the fact the country of origin or another country has
already looked at the design," he said. "And they may have their
own areas of expertise, which results in a more thorough review of
the plant."
Thirdly, a "more stable supply chain" is possible "as you go forward
to construction if you've got a standard design".
"You can spend your time with the supply chain to get the
processes, the codes and standards they have to work with, the
requirements within the process for inspection," he said, and if all
these are uniform the outcome will be a "safer process because you
don't have to change the standards that you're working to".
Fourthly, standardisation can lead to a "more efficient product lifecycle", he said. Nuclear power plants typically have a design

operating period of 60-80 years, he noted. "So if you've got a

standard design to start with and you've got a multiple number of
those designs in operation, then the improvements you can do will
be effectively implemented across all of those [plants] in a
systematic fashion." This means "managing the operational safety"
of a nuclear power plant fleet for up to eight decades, he added.
"Another place where there's obvious synergy," he said, are 'owners
groups'. "When you have plant designs in multiple countries, the
owners and regulators are speaking the same language, so to
speak, and share common practices and features in the design that
they bring together to make a more cohesive unit."
"Owners groups in which regulators share their side of the
operational experience through regulatory inspections and through
monitoring performance benefits overall safety in the operation and
in the economics of operation as well," he said.
An area for owners groups to work on is improved emergency
planning and response. Standardised designs allow similarity
between systematic approaches to incidents and accidents, leaving
"just site specific differences to deal with", he said. "So this
becomes more uniform and the sides can learn the lessons from
across the fleet."
Standardisation between regulatory and operation processes can
lead to "shared benefits" at the decommissioning stage, Head said.
On the status of advanced reactors for commercial use, Head used
the International Atomic Energy Agency's ARIS Database to
illustrate the role of MDEP.
Currently there are 42 "concept designs", including Gen III, Gen
III+ and Gen 4 types of reactors, Head noted. Of these, 27 are
under the design phase and include 19 small modular recators.
Out of remaining 15 "commercial concept" reactors, two are listed
on the ARIS Database as "on hold" and have been design certified
in the country of origin, he said. Three are in operation, two have
completed the licensing process in the country of origin, but have
not yet begun construction anywhere, and eight have cleared the
hurdles of licensing in the country of origin and/or in the country
where they have begun construction.
There are five concept designs that have undergone or are
undergoing the "rigorous" multinational design evaluation process,
he said. These are: Hitachi's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor;
Westinghouse's AP1000, EDF/Areva's European Pressurised Reactor,
the Korean-designed Advanced Pressurised Reactor-1400; and
Rosatom's VVER design. These are in various stages of licensing and
construction.

SMRs may lead the way to nuclear

standardisation, says lawyer
26 September 2016

Licensing small modular reactors (SMRs) "presents a new

opportunity for standardisation" in the nuclear power
industry, Vanessa Jakovich, counsel at Freshfields Bruckhaus
Deringer, told delegates at the World Nuclear Associations
41st Annual Symposium in London on 16 September.
Jakovich, who chairs the World Nuclear Association's Licensing and
Permitting Task Force, said traditional licensing frameworks and
standards "pose lots of challenges" in terms of standardisation and
cooperation. But, noting that 19 of the current reactor designs being
considered by regulators are SMRs, she said, "This seems to be the
new world".
"Existing nuclear countries have licensing and certification regimes
that have been in place for over half a century and to try and create
standardisation in a retrofitted world is very difficult. They present a
status quo that forms a significant barrier to international
standardisation of licensing requirements for nuclear new build, at
anything more than an incremental level," she said.
"Legal frameworks will in some cases need to be updated and new
standards will need to be developed, but standardisation is
obviously more efficient and it lowers barrier to entry, with more
opportunities for knowledge and experience sharing. These benefits
are magnified in the world of SMRs."
"It's somewhat difficult to talk about SMRs generally because the
designs are different, but there are a number of similarities. They
have little radioactive waste inventories and their modular
manufacture means less difficulty with siting and financing. Most
existing legal frameworks allow for the deployment of SMRs using
existing requirements and standards, but these frameworks will be
deployed in a new way, and in some cases, require the development
of new standards. This provides a real opportunity for
standardisation for SMRs."

Seven differences
Jakovich explained the seven differences between SMRs and largescale reactors.
Their small size means they have a smaller radioactive inventory
and responsive site capacity, as well as "smoother financial resource
demands".
Factory fabrication allows for a potential separation of construction
and operator responsibility and also creates a potential to centralise

experience and increase consistency

Their passive safety systems allow for improved accident protection
and potentially lower barriers to entry for new, inexperienced
operators.
Their siting constraints could be "much lower", she said, because
undergrounding potentially reduces seismic and security risks, and
there is less cooling water demand.
The potential for remote decommissioning means quicker
remediation of sites by removal of plant and more predictable
outcomes in terms of safety and cost.
SMRs are "novel", she said, since most designs are still unproven.
The fact they are modular and scalable means they are "agile", she
said.

Legal fundamentals
Jakovich then outlined the "legal fundamentals" of licensing.
"The utopia of standardisation would be to have international
certification. Ultimately if you could have an internationally certified
module, it could be designed and manufactured in a factory,
meaning you can deploy it wherever you like provided that the host
country is signed up to the certification program. That would be
ideal, but it's not realistic in the short or medium term. So where
could we make improvements to make sure that we maximise the
opportunities?"
The Multinational Design Evaluation Program (MDEP) established by
the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency in 2006, considers standardisation
of technical standards, Jakovich noted, "but ultimately a country
needs to have a regulatory system at the highest level which allows
these standardised requirements to be deployed properly. And that's
where the legal framework is important."

The 'prime responsibility' principle

One of the biggest legal challenges, she said, is in the relationship
between the manufacturer and the operator of an SMR.
"In most areas, licensing processes could apply in exactly same way
as to conventional plants, but there are some areas where SMRs
could be treated differently. Some differences pose challenges, but
some pose opportunities."
She summarised the requirements laid out in the International
Atomic Energy Agency's Convention on Nuclear Safety, and
considered how a licensing regime which facilitated SMR
standardisation could be developed within these overarching

principles.
Firstly, the "permission principle", whereby countries must have a
system of licensing, prohibit operation without a licence, and ensure
inspection, assessment and enforcement, and whereby licensed
operators must bear prime responsibility.
Secondly, the "obligation to qualify as a licensable entity", meaning
that licensed operators must have policies prioritising safety and
must have sufficient financial and human resources to ensure
safety.
Thirdly, the requirement to have "a licensing application process
with project gateways", with comprehensive safety assessments
before construction, commissioning, and through the project's life,
as well as siting and consultation processes.
Fourthly, there must be a system with "substantive project
requirements", with construction and technology that includes
defence-in-depth, is proven or is qualified by testing, and is reliable
and stable. In addition, the technology must accord with a safety
case, use established procedures, constantly improve, and minimise
waste.
She said that nothing in these requirements prevents a licensing
regime from incorporating the use of international standards, and in
fact, SMRs pose opportunities to increase consistency with these
requirements.
However, Jakovich highlighted two articles which pose particular
challenges for SMRs: Article 9 which requires that licensed
operators must bear prime responsibility; and Article 18 requiring
operation using established procedures and a design that is be
proven or qualified by testing. Her view was that governments
should seek to develop legal frameworks arounds SMR licensing in a
way that seeks to overcome these challenges, particularly to
capture the benefits of factory manufacture of standardised designs.

Licensing phases
In line with the IAEA requirements, all existing nuclear countries
have developed their own licensing processes with different phases
and hold-points, Jakovich noted.
"Governments interested in SMR deployment, whether as an
exporting or importing country, need to look at the licensing regime.
At which point do you need to seek licensing? Every country does
this differently. What would need to change to allow a standardised

SMR program? The most important aspects are about siting and
reactor design approval," Jakovich told delegates.
"The stages which are important facilitate international
standardisation are around, when you get the actual reactor design
licensed and when you have to get siting approval for construction.
Traditional programs don't necessarily allow for this to be separated
unless you have a reactor design phase.If countries have this,
whether it's statutory or non-statutory, you're actually creating an
environment where it's a lot easier and allows people to cooperate
to try and achieve standardisation."
"It's not a difficult thing to do: the UK introduced a generic design
assessment processes in the space of about two years without even
having to pass an Act of Parliament. It doesn't have statutory force,
but it provides an opportunity to assess the design of a reactor in
isolation. This creates an environment where aligned technical
standards would work well, because different regulators would be
assessing the design at the same stage, before the need for sitespecific variations."

Rectangular cask passes tests

23 September 2016

Holtec International has successfully completed a series of

free drop-tests on its HI-STAR ATB-1T waste cask. The cask
has a rectangular footprint, unlike cylindrical fuel-bearing
transport casks.

Setting up for the centre-of-gravity-over-corner drop test (Image: Holtec)

The HI-STAR ATB 1T - also known as the HI-STAR 330 - is designed

for transportation of radioactive non-fuel waste and hardware from
reactor operations and decommissioning. Holtec submitted its safety
analysis report for US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
approval in October 2015, planning to start production in 2017

subject to the successful completion of the licence certification

process.
To earn certification, a transport cask must pass a series of "free
drop" tests in which a scaled replica of the loaded cask is dropped
from a height of 30 feet (9 metres) on to an unyielding surface. The
cask's ability to maintain its radiation-blocking capability must
remain substantially unimpaired. Both US and international
regulations require the cask's orientation at impact with the target
surface to be selected so as to induce the maximum damage to the
cask.
A quarter-scale model of the ATB-1T cask, fabricated by Holtec's
manufacturing division and instrumented by the Sandia National
Laboratory of New Mexico, was subjected to three successive drops
in three discrete orientations in accordance with the a plan reviewed
by the NRC. The tests were carried out at Sandia National
Laboratories' Albequerque drop test facility. The direct collisions
included a top down oblique drop, a centre-of-gravity-over-corner
drop, and a puncture drop test. The cask met the structural
sufficiency criteria and sustained no damage to its containment
boundary or dislodging of its closure lid, Holtec said.
According to Holtecs design team, the cask exhibited physical
deformation contours in line with those predicted by computer
simulations. The data collected during the tests will now be
processed and is expected to confirm the successful structural
performance of the cask under the qualifying accidental drop
scenarios. The computer simulations will also provide a valuable
benchmark for the computer code, validated under Holtecs quality
assurance program, routinely used to simulate impact phenomena
in a variety of nuclear plant systems, structures, and components.
While fuel-bearing transport casks are cylindrical, the ATB-1T cask
has a large rectangular footprint (about 12 feet by 5.9 feet, or 3.7
metres by 1.8 metres) with several corners, facets and edges that
render it vulnerable to a crushing impact loading. The ATB-1T cask,
which with its payload weighs over 120 tonnes, has no impact
limiter to cushion its impact upon its collision with the target, unlike
cylindrical casks which are fitted with impact limiters. Avoiding the
need for impact limiters simplifies operations and reduces
operational dose associated with impact limiter installation, Holtec
says.
The ATB-1T cask is also equipped with an innovative quick
connect/disconnect controlled cask locking system rather than a
conventional bolted lid.

Energy harmony on a major scale

12 July 2016

A diverse and balanced energy mix is best for people and the

planet. Achieving this globally means nuclear energy should

really expand more than most expect, but this requires a
concerted effort by the entire nuclear community and its
stakeholders to remove barriers to growth, writes Agneta
Rising.
Providing enough electricity for everybody to live well is a huge
challenge - and one which still hasn't been successfully met in some
parts of the world. First and foremost, electricity must be made
available where and when it is needed. Other questions are
secondary to the primary needs of energy availability and security.
This is important to keep in mind when constructing any global
outlook for electricity, for which there is a huge growing demand
among two thirds of the world's population.
When considering complexities such as local conditions (geography,
climate, population density, infrastructure), environmental
considerations (greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, land/water
impacts) and the ever-changing face of electricity end-use, it is
clear that no single generating technology is the best tool for the
entire job. A diverse and balanced mix is best, one which works in
harmony with the needs of people and the realities of our
environment.
Running entirely counter to this principle, lobbyists pushing '100%
renewables' visions disregard the global need for diversity in the
energy system. This makes the task of balancing cost, energy
security, and environmental considerations all the more difficult.
Such voices seem to dominate energy policy discussion these days,
but regrettably, they make no practical attempt to address all
competing factors.

Tipping the energy scales

It is still the case that fossil fuels provide the vast majority of global
energy requirements across all sectors - electricity, transport and
heating. This remarkably versatile and scalable form of energy has
provided the backbone for the development of human civilisation
since the industrial revolution. The fact that burning fossil fuels
releases greenhouse gases which contribute to an accelerated and
dangerous rate of climate change is, put simply, a tragedy. The
global scientific consensus is that within a few short decades we
must achieve a great reduction of their share in the energy mix, and
perhaps find a way to sequester their emissions, if we are to
prevent a greater than two degree rise in average temperature. We
cannot afford to wait a decade or more to start decarbonising
energy supply. This massive endeavour must start building
momentum from today, and requires the expanded use of all
currently available low-carbon technologies.
It does not receive a lot of attention, but of all the individual
electricity sources in the International Energy Agency's (IEA's) 2-

degree scenario, nuclear energy has the largest single role to play.
Expanding to supply roughly 17% of electricity by 2050 requires
substantial capacity addition far beyond the rate of new build we
see in the Western world today. Here it is worth noting however that
while nuclear energy is a technology proven at almost any scale in a
system we still don't know if large-scale intermittent renewable
deployment, energy storage or CCS will turn out to be technically or
economically viable. In addition, the electricity demand forecast
may turn out to be simply too low. Greater than expected
urbanisation or electrification of transportation could well drive this
up. This motivates the case for raising the target for future nuclear
energy deployment even beyond the one indicated by IEA.
Harmony is an initiative by the global nuclear industry to meet the growing
demand for reliable, affordable and clean electricity in a decarbonised future.
The target is for nuclear energy to supply at least 25 percent of global
electricity by 2050. For this purpose we have set up a work program supporting
a level playing field for all low-carbon technologies, harmonised regulatory
processes and an effective safety paradigm.

Based on the 2-degree scenario the World Nuclear Association has

developed its own vision for the future of electricity - Harmony (see
box). In this, nuclear energy expands to supply 25% of electricity
by 2050 and forms part of a diverse mix of available low-carbon
generating technologies which are deployed in such a manner that
the benefits of each are maximised while the negative impacts are
minimised. Renewables, nuclear and a greatly reduced level of fossil
fuel work together in harmony to ensure a reliable, affordable and
clean energy supply. In this optimised energy system the needs for
societal development and prosperity are finely balanced against
those of the natural environment.

Global cooperation - achieving nuclear harmony

To grow from supplying 11% of global electricity today to 25% in
2050 will require roughly 1000 GWe of new nuclear capacity to be
constructed - depending on other factors like reactor retirements,
electricity demand growth etc. These targets (25% of supply, 1000
GWe of new nuclear by 2050) may seem underwhelming to some
and far-fetched to others, but a great deal of consideration has
gone into them and they were set after extensive consultation with
leading nuclear industry figures.
Firstly, let it be noted that the targets do not rely on the expected
commercialisation of any advanced reactor designs. A quarter
(25%) of electricity generation easily fits within the baseload profile
of most countries and this could readily be met by currently
available reactor technology. However, the targets should incentivise
the development of new nuclear technologies which provide
increased flexibility and versatility to accommodate the evolution of
supply and demand profiles in future energy systems. The nuclear
industry is by no means compelled to change its core product, but

innovating and expanding the range of its offerings should increase

the accessibility of nuclear energy in certain markets. Adding
impetus to this, a 25% global target means that some countries will
have to do more than this and others less.
Rather than focusing purely on technology, it is vital that the global
industry identifies and focuses on demolishing the real barriers to
growth. The World Nuclear Association has determined the following
objectives as key to achieving the Harmony goal. The global nuclear
industry should seek to realise:
A level playing field. Where countries introduce technology neutral
market frameworks that permit all low-carbon technologies, valuing
not only levelised costs, but also system reliability and
environmental benefits.
Harmonised regulatory processes. So that flow-on efficiencies can
be achieved with global codes & standards and efficient licensing of
current and new technology.
An effective safety paradigm. This should increase genuine public
wellbeing by reducing emissions from polluting sources, and
ensuring high nuclear safety standards are met.
These will have to be met on a national and global scale if we are to
reach the Harmony* targets, and thereby reduce the risk of runaway climate change.
The nuclear industry must show the way. The harmony of purpose
that characterised national nuclear programs in the early years has
to be applied now to the global enterprise. It is a point of fact that
the rates at which new reactors must be constructed in order to
meet the Harmony targets are no higher than has been achieved
historically. The major differences are the many new locations
where new construction is needed and the modern landscape of
social and economic issues. These present new and often unfamiliar
challenges, requiring solution-oriented responses. Every
organisation in the established nuclear community - from research,
government, regulation, design, operation, decommissioning and
waste management - should focus their efforts on overcoming
these. To achieve the Harmony goals the global nuclear community
must work together in a highly cooperative way, but on a new set of
problems. Here the World Nuclear Association is keen to lead the
way.
Agneta Rising
This article first appeared in Nuclear Engineering International
Comments? Please send them to editor@world-nuclear-news.org
Agneta Rising has been the Director General of the World Nuclear
Association since January 2013. Previous to this, Rising was Vice
President Environment at Vattenfall AB and Director for Nuclear
Business Development at Vattenfall Generation. Agneta Rising
became chairman of the Uranium Institute in May 2000, and

presided over its transformation into the World Nuclear Association

in 2001.

The Nordic experience in nuclear

power
08 September 2016

Following the Paris climate conference at the end of last

year, the energy sector is facing its biggest challenge ever.
Countries around the world are searching for pathways to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are looking for the
right balance to the trilemma of security of supply,
sustainability and competitiveness. Nordic countries can
offer some useful lessons, writes Lauri Virkkunen.
There is a widespread myth that nuclear and renewables are
somehow mutually exclusive options. This is far from reality. While
the Nordic countries (especially Sweden and Norway) are blessed
with an abundance of hydropower resources, they have had to rely
on other energy sources when it became apparent that hydropower
alone couldn't satisfy the regions growing electricity needs. Finland
and Sweden decided to meet growing demand with nuclear power
while Denmark became a global pioneer in wind power.
Today, almost 90% of the electricity produced in the Nordics
(including Estonia) comes from CO2-free sources. Moreover, in
order to optimize their different production and demand profiles the
countries formed one the world's first supranational wholesale
marketplace for electricity. While there are still bottlenecks in the
marketplace, the wholesale price is usually the same over the whole
area.
In terms of consumer prices, Nordic industries and households and
enjoy some of the cheapest electricity prices in Europe (according to
Eurostat). The only exception is Denmark, with its relatively high
consumption taxes and subsidy costs. Security of supply is also very
high in the region, due to large share of reliable domestic
production and extensive transmission network.
In terms of the energy trilemma, the system performs very well.

The Nordic way with nuclear

It's all well and good to find a strategy that works well on paper.
Admittedly, nuclear power can be a tough sell to the wider public.
People tend to have fears about the safety of the plants themselves
as well as the management of used fuel. In this respect, the Nordic
countries might have something to give to the rest of the world.
The starting point for any country that wants to include nuclear
energy in its generation mix is to require a political and 'social'
operating licence for utilities running nuclear plants and facilities.
Political licence means stringent but transparent policies and
technical frameworks that guarantee the whole sector operates with

the utmost respect for nuclear safety.

When safety is the number one priority for the plant operator it
tends to lead to higher performance from a business perspective, as
safety becomes an integrated part of plant operations. The strength
of this approach is evident from the historical capacity factor of the
Finnish nuclear fleet which is one of the highest in the world - over
90%.
Reliable operation and continuous engagement with the public are
reflected in the figures that measure the general public's attitudes
towards nuclear energy. In 2015 a survey by Finnish Energy, a trade
association, found that 50% of respondents considered Finland as
having a good experiences of nuclear power compared to 20% who
considered their experience to be negative.
Another reason behind the 'social operating licence' of nuclear
power is the fact that the local population is included in the
decision-making process. In a nutshell, local municipalities have a
veto over the siting of new nuclear projects - including new units as
well as final waste repositories.

Managing nuclear waste

Globally, the appropriate handling of nuclear waste is considered to
be a major drawback of nuclear energy. Here, the Nordic countries
are also an exception. Finnish and Swedish nuclear companies have
been researching the safe disposal of used fuel for decades.
The concept that both countries have now adopted is called deep
geological disposal. In Finland, used fuel management is currently
handled by Posiva, a company mutually owned by the operators of
the existing nuclear units. SKB, its Swedish counterpart, is
organized under the same principles.
In terms of the geological disposal, the Nordic countries enjoy a
natural advantage. The bedrock consists largely of granite, is over
1.8 billion years old and one the most stable places on Earth.
Finland is set to be the first country in the world to have a final
disposal facility in operation when Posiva starts disposing of the
used fuel in the 2020s.
In addition to the lesson about how to technically manage used fuel,
it is important to note the technical solution has to go hand in hand
with social aspects that are best guaranteed with the same guiding
principle of safety as well as transparency and clear political will.
Finland is now in fact looking to export its experience in used fuel
management - an offshoot company of the project, Posiva
Solutions, started operations this year.

Future Challenges
The future outlook of the nuclear sector isn't as clear however.
Admittedly, construction of the new EPR unit in Olkiluoto hasn't
gone exactly as planned. However, I am confident that, once

finished, the plant will be one of the safest and most sophisticated
nuclear unit in the world.
The Nordic market environment is similar to the rest of Europe wholesale prices are at almost historical lows due to a major drop in
demand in recent years, as well as to the flooding of the market
with excess electricity from subsidized renewables sources. In order
to get back on track with decarbonisation of the electricity sector in
a manageable way, policymakers across the EU will have to address
this market failure by turning the focus from subsidies back to the
emissions trading system.
Another impediment to construction of new nuclear plants in Europe
is the fact they have become increasingly expensive. The industry
itself has to improve its performance by driving down costs, but this
alone is not enough.
Nuclear regulation across the continent is a patchwork of legal
frameworks that have led to over-customization of plants and safety
related equipment. Europe and the nuclear sector would greatly
benefit form an approach that aimed to harmonize and standardize
the legal requirements set for the sector and its suppliers. For
example, a piece of equipment that has been approved by safety
regulators in one country shouldnt have to run the same legal
gauntlet in a country with similar standards.
Work is of course being done to improve these issues already, but
more effort is needed and I am looking forward to discussing them
at the forthcoming World Energy Congress in Istanbul.

Pragmatism is the key

The human psyche always seems to crave silver bullet answers to
the world's calamities. Societal expectations set for the energy
sector are no different. Proponents of different energy sources often
make wildly exaggerated claims about the unparalleled capabilities
of their favourite technologies while conveniently forgetting their
disadvantages.
If the Nordic approach to the energy trilemma were to be described
with one word it would be pragmatism. I understand this approach
isnt as flashy and awe-inspiring as others out there, but at least we
know it works. And that is what counts from the perspective of
business as well as the climate.
Lauri Virkkunen
Comments? Send them to editor@world-nuclear-news.org
Lauri Virkkunen is the CEO of Pohjolan Voima Oy. He will be
speaking at the 23rd World Energy Congress, which is taking place
in Istanbul from 9 to 13 October.

WNA Links

Nuclear Power in Finland

Nuclear Power in Sweden

Related Links

Pohjolan Voima Oy
AddThis Button BEGIN

UK sets fifth carbon budget

30 June 2016

The UK government has set a fifth carbon budget aimed at

cutting the country's carbon dioxide emissions by almost
57% by 2032 compared with 1990 levels. Legislation
ultimately aims to cut the UK's emissions by 80% by 2050.
The UK's Climate Change Act of 2008 sets the ambitious 2050
target. It requires the government to set legally-binding carbon
budgets, which limit the country's emissions for consecutive fiveyear periods. The budgets are designed to put emission reductions
on an appropriate and cost-effective path to meeting the 2050
target.
The first three budgets were set in May 2009, following advice from
the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC). The first (for
the period 2008 to 2012), set maximum net emissions at 3018
million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), a 25%
reduction on 1990 levels. The second budget (2013-2017) limits
emission to 2782 million tCO2e (a 30% reduction), while the third
budget (2018-2022) restricts emissions to 2544 million tCO2e (a
36% cut). The fourth budget (2022-2027) was set in May 2011 and
limits emissions to 1950 million tCO2e (a 51% reduction).
The Department of Energy and Climate Change has now announced
that the fifth carbon budget - covering the period 2028 to 2032 has now been set.
The CCC advised on the level of the fifth carbon budget last
November. It had recommended emissions in the 2028-2032 period
should be limited to 1765 million tCO2e, taking into account for the
first time emissions from international shipping.
However, the government concluded "it is not appropriate to include
international shipping emissions given [that] negotiations through
the International Maritime Organization have not yet been
completed". It has therefore set the fifth budget at 1725 million
tCO2e, which is 56.9% below 1990 levels.
In a statement today, the CCC said: "The committee welcomes the
clear signal this sends about UK ambition to continue reducing
emissions into the 2030s across the economy, including from power,
transport and buildings. This is particularly important given the
uncertainty following the recent vote to leave the EU. The
announcement shows that the UK remains committed to its climate
targets and is open for low-carbon business."
However, it added that evidence showed conditions for including
emissions from international shipping in the fifth carbon budget had
been met, and that it would "examine the government's reasoning".

Provisional figures for 2015 show that UK emissions are 38% below
1990 levels, the CCC noted.

Ministers impose significant new

safeguards for future foreign
investment in critical infrastructure.

Hinkley Point C

Following a comprehensive review of the Hinkley

Point C project, and a revised agreement with
EDF, the Government has decided to proceed
with the first new nuclear power station for a
generation. However, ministers will impose a new
legal framework for future foreign investment in
Britains critical infrastructure, which will include
nuclear energy and apply after Hinkley.
The agreement in principle with EDF means that:
The Government will be able to prevent the sale
of EDFs controlling stake prior to the completion
of construction, without the prior notification and

agreement of ministers. This agreement will be

confirmed in an exchange of letters between the
Government and EDF. Existing legal powers, and
the new legal framework, will mean that the
Government is able to intervene in the sale of
EDFs stake once Hinkley is operational.
The new legal framework for future foreign
investment in British critical infrastructure will
mean that:
After Hinkley, the British Government will take a
special share in all future nuclear new build
projects. This will ensure that significant stakes
cannot be sold without the Governments
knowledge or consent.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation will be directed
to require notice from developers or operators of
nuclear sites of any change of ownership or partownership. This will allow the Government to
advise or direct the ONR to take action to protect
national security as a result of a change in
ownership.
There will be reforms to the Governments
approach to the ownership and control of critical
infrastructure to ensure that the full implications
of foreign ownership are scrutinised for the

purposes of national security. This will include a

review of the public interest regime in the
Enterprise Act 2002 and the introduction of a
cross-cutting national security requirement for
continuing Government approval of the
ownership and control of critical infrastructure.
These changes will bring Britains policy
framework for the ownership and control of
critical infrastructure into line with other major
economies. This will allow the UK Government to
introduce a consistent approach to considering
the national security implications of all significant
investments in critical infrastructure, including
nuclear energy, in the future. The changes mean
that, while the UK will remain one of the most
open economies in the world, the public can be
confident that foreign direct investment works in
the countrys best interests.
Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy, said:
Having thoroughly reviewed the proposal for
Hinkley Point C, we will introduce a series of
measures to enhance security and will ensure
Hinkley cannot change hands without the
Governments agreement. Consequently, we

have decided to proceed with the first new

nuclear power station for a generation.
Britain needs to upgrade its supplies of energy,
and we have always been clear that nuclear is an
important part of ensuring our future low-carbon
energy security.
The collaboration between France and the United
Kingdom underlines the continued strength of the
bilateral relationship and the ongoing industrial
and energy co-operation.
The Government is committed to ensuring the
country has a secure low carbon energy supply.
Hinkley Point C will be a critical part of that, and
will inaugurate a new era of UK nuclear power building on Britains strong nuclear legacy.
Currently, the UK has eight nuclear power
stations which generate around 20% of power in
the UK. Almost all of these existing power
stations are due to close by 2030. This
underlines why the Government needs to take
decisions now on how we will ensure we have
sufficient and diverse supply fit for future
generations.
Hinkley Point C will provide seven per cent of
Britains electricity needs for sixty years. UK-

based businesses will benefit from more than

60% of the 18 billion value of the project, and
26,000 jobs and apprenticeships will be created.

Notes to Editors

The Secretary of State is minded to direct the

Low Carbon Contracts Company to offer a
Contract for Difference to EDF. The Contract for
Difference would provide a set price of 92.50
per megawatt hour of electricity provided by
Hinkley Point C for 35 years once it begins
generating. The difference between the strike
price and the wholesale price is paid for through
consumer bills, in the same way as other clean
technologies such as offshore wind.

An investigation into the

falsification of pellet diameter
data in the MOX demonstration
facility at the BNFL Sellafield Site
and the effect of this on the
safety of MOX fuel in Use

Foreword
Summary
Conclusions
Introduction
MOX fuel manufacture at Sellafield
Investigation findings

Assessment of the safety of MDF fuel in use

Requirements for the restart of MDF
Important Fuel Quality Characteristics
Fuel Rod Failure Mechanisms
MOX Fuel Pellet Lot Numbers with Falsified Data
Key MOX Fuel Pellet Quality Characteristics
Key MOX Fuel Rod Quality Characteristics

Foreword
This report sets out the findings of the investigation carried out by HSE's
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate into the falsification of quality
assurance data associated with the production of MOX nuclear fuel
pellets manufactured in the MOX Demonstration Facility at Sellafield.
The investigation was carried out under the control of the Deputy Chief
Inspector responsible for regulating the safety at BNFL's sites. The
investigation began shortly after BNFL notified NII of suspected
falsification on 10 September.
It is the Executive's view that the report gives a thorough analysis of the
issues surrounding the falsification of quality assurance data at MDF. It
is clear that various individuals were engaged in falsification of
important records but a systematic failure allowed it to happen.
It has not been possible to establish the motive for this falsification, but
the poor ergonomic design of this part of the plant and the tedium of the
job seem to have been contributory factors. The lack of adequate
supervision has provided the opportunity. Despite this, self-discipline
ought to have ensured that those involved followed the proper
procedures.
One point worth noting is that in the new Sellafield MOX Plant, currently
being commissioned, the inspection processes for MOX pellets, rods
and assemblies are designed to be almost fully automated: this should
prevent the falsification of data of the kind described in this report.
There are many lessons to learn, but the MOX Demonstration Facility is
shut down and will not be allowed to restart until NII is satisfied that the
recommendations in the report have been implemented.
If you have any comments, or would like further information on the
issues discussed in this report, write to the Chief Inspector at the
following address below:
Laurence Williams
Director of Nuclear Safety and HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear
Installations
Health and Safety Executive
St Peter's House
Stanley Precinct
Bootle L20 3LZ

Summary

The MOX Demonstration Facility (MDF) at BNFL's Sellafield site

manufactures MOX (mixed oxides of plutonium and uranium) fuel
pellets and assembles these using various customer supplied
components to make complete fuel assemblies for use in nuclear power
reactors. Each fuel pellet produced passes through a fully automated
laser micrometer which checks and records the pellet's diameter at
three points along its length, giving a 100% automatic check on all
pellets used in a fuel rod. Any undersized or oversized pellets are
automatically rejected. Those which fall within the specified diametral
tolerance pass onto the next stage where each undergoes further visual
checks. As a confirmatory check on diameter and in accordance with
the 1% Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) criterion set out in BS 6001, a
sample of 200 pellets (approximately 5%) which have passed through
both these stages is measured for a second time. This quality check is
done using a similar micrometer, but the sample pellets are presented
to the micrometer by process workers who type each measured
diameter, e.g. 8.195mm, into a computer spreadsheet.
On 20 August 1999 a member of MDF's Quality Control Team identified
similarities between the secondary pellet diameter data for successive
Lots. After further investigations, on 10 September 1999 BNFL reported
to NII that some of these secondary pellet diameter checks on the fuel
manufactured for a Japanese customer appeared to have been falsified
by copying some data between spreadsheets.
The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
(NII) promptly launched an investigation to establish both the extent of
the falsification and the causes of the event. NII concluded that data
had indeed been falsified but that this would not affect the safety
performance of the fuel, given the automated primary diameter check
on 100% of the pellets used in each fuel rod.
NII believes the failure to properly carry out the agreed manual checks
of the pellet diameter to be a contractual issue between BNFL and its
customer. However, because it also represents a deliberate breach of
operating procedures the Inspectorate launched an investigation which
centred upon:
understanding just what had occurred in MDF and why;
whether the fuel involved will be safe in use; and
what needs to be done to prevent any recurrence.
NII's investigation into possible reasons for the falsification identified
that although various individuals were at fault, a systematic failure
allowed it to happen. In a plant with the proper safety culture, the events
described in this report could not have happened.
NII commissioned an independent analysis by HSE's statisticians of the
extent of the falsification. The results of this and further manual checks
of data by NII showed that the initial investigation by BNFL, carried out
under severe time pressures was too narrow: there had been a

tendency to rush to early conclusions which understated the extent of

the problem by assuming that the falsification was largely confined to
one shift. Nevertheless BNFL agreed to carry out further, more detailed
investigations and, following discussions with NII, has taken steps to
address the contributory factors to this incident which the Company and
the Inspectorate have identified.
NII is satisfied that in spite of the falsification of the quality assurance
related data, the totality of the fuel manufacturing quality checks are
such that the MOX fuel produced for Japan will be safe in use. With
regard to MDF, the plant is shut down and will not be allowed to restart
until NII is satisfied that the recommendations outlined in this report
have been implemented to ensure, inter alia, that the deficiencies found
in the quality checking process have been rectified, the management of
the plant has been improved and plant operators have been either
replaced or retrained to bring the safety culture in the plant up to the
standard NII requires for a nuclear installation.

Conclusions
103. The events at MDF which have been revealed in the course of this
investigation could not have occurred had there been a proper safety
culture within this plant. It is clear that some process workers falsified
records of the diameter of fuel pellets taken for QA sampling. One
example of falsification has been found dating back to 1996. There can
be no excuse for process workers not following procedures and
deliberately falsifying records to avoid doing a tedious task. These
people need to be identified and disciplined. However, the management
on the plant allowed this to happen, and since it had been going on for
over three years, must share responsibility.
104. Before NII will allow the restart of MDF, BNFL will need to address
all the recommendations in the report to the Inspectorate's satisfaction.
Added to HSE website 18th February 2000
http://www.onr.org.uk/mox/mox1.htm

NDA secures new delivery partner for 22 billion

Sellafield Ltd contract
24 November 2008
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) today completed one of the
UKs largest and most complex public procurement programmes when the
shares in Sellafield Ltd transferred from British Nuclear Group Ltd to a
specially created private sector consortium Nuclear Management Partners
Ltd.
Nuclear Management Partners Ltd (NMP) will own the shares in Sellafield Ltd
for up to 17 years, the potential length of new and updated contracts between
the NDA, NMP and Sellafield Ltd. The value of the work covered is worth
1.3bn in its first year and over the full lifetime of the contract approximately
22bn.

Todays news signals the successful conclusion of a two-year competitive

process by the NDA to secure a world-class parent body for Sellafield Ltd,
held in accordance with EU procurement rules.
Energy and Climate Change Minister Mike OBrien said:
This is an important milestone in tackling the UKs civil public nuclear legacy.
The Government established the NDA to get to grips with the legacy
after decades of inaction. We are using competition to bring in world class
expertise to clean up sites in the most efficient way.
Sellafield is the biggest and most technically challenging site and we look
forward to seeing significant progress under NMPs management.
Stephen Henwood, Chairman of the NDA said:
Today is the culmination of enormous effort to successfully complete, on
schedule, not just the NDAs biggest and most significant competition, but a
public sector procurement of vital importance to UK PLC.
It also signals a new relationship between the public and private sector, based
on partnership delivery, to tackle the most significant nuclear
decommissioning, clean-up and socio-economic challenges at the sites
managed and operated by Sellafield Ltd. This partnership will deliver
increased performance and value for money for the taxpayer.
Tom Zarges, Chairman of NMP said:
NMP is delighted to have secured this contract after a very rigorous selection
process. We are committed to working in partnership with the NDA, the
workforce, the supply chain and the local community to realise our shared
vision, and to make the Sellafield sites world class operational and
decommissioning centres of excellence.
This afternoon an invited audience of over 150 stakeholders witnessed the
signing of a partnering charter between the NDA, NMP and Sellafield Ltd, at
the Sellafield Centre in West Cumbria. Stakeholders present were drawn from
local, regional and national government, regulators, the nuclear industry and
supply chain, and the trade unions.

Background
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is a non-departmental body
set up under the Energy Act 2004, responsible for the decommissioning and
clean-up of the UKs civil public nuclear sites. The NDA does not directly
manage the sites but contracts out the delivery of site programmes to Site
Licence Companies (SLCs), who are responsible for day-today operations.
Each SLC has a Parent Body Organisation (PBO), which owns the shares in
that SLC for the duration of the contract with the NDA.
Sellafield Ltd is the Site Licence Company that manages and operates, on
behalf of the NDA, the reprocessing and waste storage facilities at Sellafield,
the former nuclear power stations Calder Hall and Windscale (all in West
Cumbria), the Capenhurst nuclear site and an Engineering Design Centre at
Risley in Cheshire.
In November 2006 the NDA launched a competition in accordance with EU
procurement rules to secure a new Parent Body for Sellafield Ltd. Nuclear
Management Partners Ltd were chosen as the NDAs preferred bidder on 11
July 2008 and a transition agreement between the two parties was entered
into on the 6 October 2008.
Nuclear Management Partners Ltd is a Special Purpose Vehicle created
specifically to bid for the Sellafield PBO competition and consists of URS

Washington Division, AMEC and AREVA NC.

Today the NDA and NMP entered into a contractual arrangement via a Parent
Body Agreement, and the NDA and Sellafield Ltd agreed a Deed of Variation
to the existing Management & Operations Contract to take account of the new
Parent Body arrangements. The Parent Body Agreement specifies the
obligations of the Parent Body as owner of the site licence company in areas
such as financing, deployment of key resources and the enhancement of
performance in key areas. The Management & Operations Contract embodies
the delivery of all work across the Sellafield Ltd sites in accordance with
specified terms and conditions.
The award of the Parent Body Agreement is initially for a period of five years
with the potential of further extension periods, subject to performance, to a
total of 17 years. The Management & Operations Contract offers business
initially to the value of around 1.3 billion per annum with associated fee of
approximately 50 million per annum, subject to the specified level of
improved performance and efficiency of Sellafield Ltd being met.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150817115932/http://w
ww.nda.gov.uk/news/sellafield-contract.cfm

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, through

Radioactive Waste Management (RWM), is
responsible for implementing UK Government
policy for the long- term management of higher
activity radioactive wastes. The UK Governments
framework for Implementing Geological Disposal
defines the inventory for disposal in a geological
disposal facility (GDF) in terms of types of higher
activity radioactive wastes (and nuclear material
that could be declared as waste). RWM has
developed a more detailed description of this
inventory (a Derived Inventory) for use in generic
GDF design and assessment work to support the
implementation process.
The quantities of waste and nuclear materials are
subject to change due to a number of factors that
include improved estimates from planned
operations and decommissioning programmes. The
Derived Inventory is therefore periodically updated
to take into account new information, in particular
from the latest edition of the UK Radioactive Waste
Inventory.
This report provides a qualitative initial assessment
to identify whether changes introduced by the

2013 Derived Inventory have implications for the

current generic Disposal System Safety Case
(2010).

FUNDED
PhD:
BIODEGRADATION
ISOSACCHARINIC ACID

THE
OF

Posted on March 22, 2013 by Heather Murphy

.entry-meta
Professor Jonathan Lloyd and Dr Nick Bryan,
University of Manchester
Synopsis
Microbial metabolism plays a key role in
controlling the degradation of organics and the
solubility of radionuclides in natural, nearneutral pH subsurface environments. However,
there is much less information available on the
impact of microbial metabolism on radionuclide
speciation at high pH values, representative of
intermediate level nuclear waste (ILW) in
environments engineered for geological disposal.
In the high pH concrete-dominated environment
associated with ILW, there is particular concern
relating
the
potential
mobilization
of
radionuclides by the strong chelating agent,
isosaccharinic acid (ISA), formed by the abiotic
hydrolysis of cellulose. Although a restricted
number of studies have suggested that ISA can be
degraded aerobically at circumneutral pH by
bacteria, the mechanisms underpinning such
transformations, and their impact on ISAradionuclide
interactions
remain
poorly
constrained. Furthermore, no published studies
have addressed such processes at (1) high pH of
relevance to ILW conditions or (2) anoxic
conditions, that will dominate with time in a
geodisposal facility.
The aim of this NDA-RWMD-funded PhD study, is

to develop a deeper understanding of the potential

microbial processes that could impact on ISA
under
GDF-relevant
conditions,
utilising
enrichment and pure cultures to determine the
impact of ISA biodegradation on the mobility of
key target radionuclides. Comparative data will
also be collected from enrichment cultures
constructed at neutral pH, under conditions
analogous to geosphere conditions surrounding
ILW and the associated alkali disturbed zone. This
will allow the student to predict the rate and
extent of ISA degradation under a range of
biogeochemical conditions around a GDF, should
the
cellulose
degradation
product
travel
significant distances from the ILW/ADZ.
Training
The student working on this cross-disciplinary
project will gain training in microbiology,
molecular
biology,
geochemistry
and
radiochemistry and will have access to world-class
facilities in the Williamson Research Centre for
Molecular Environmental Science, the Centre for
Radiochemistry Research and the Research
Centre for Geological Disposal at the University of
Manchester. The student will also gain additional
industrial focus from working in conjunction with
the contractors on any related RWMD projects.
The final PhD thesis will comprise 3-5
manuscripts formatted for publication in top
journals in the field.
References
Brookshaw, D.R., Pattrick, R.A.D, Lloyd, J.R. and
Vaughan, D.J. (2012) Microbial effects on
mineral-radionuclide
interactions
and
radionuclide solid-phase capture processes.
Mineralogical Magazine 76 777806
Birjkumar, K.H., Bryan, N.D. and Kaltsoyannis, N
(2012) Is gluconate a good model for

isosaccharinate in uranyl(VI) chemistry? A DFT

study. DALTON TRANSACTIONS 41 5542-5552
DOI: 10.1039/c2dt12478e
Lloyd, J.R. and Gadd, G.M. (2011). The
geomicrobiology of radionuclides. Geomicrobiol.
J. 28:5-6, 383-386
Rizoulis, A., Steele, H.M., Morris, K. and Lloyd,
J.R. (2012) The potential impact of anaerobic
microbial metabolism during the geological
disposal
of
intermediate-level
waste.
Mineralogical Magazine 76 397406
Wilkins, M.J., Livens, F.R., Vaughan, D.J., Beadle,
I., Small, J.S. and Lloyd, J.R. (2010) Fe(III)
Reduction in the Subsurface at a Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site. Geomicrobiology
Journal 27 231-23
Further details: jon.lloyd@manchester.ac.uk
Decommisioning UK Nuclear Microbial degradation of isosaccharinic
acid at high pH
http://www.rcrd.manchester.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bassil-ISAismej-20142.pdf

Fully-funded Nuclear Engineering

Doctorate: Control of algae in fuel
storage ponds
Posted on March 22, 2013 by Heather Murphy

.entry-meta
Academic supervisors: Prof Jon Lloyd (SEAES),
Drs Jon Pittman and David Sigee (FLS)
Industrial supervisor: Dr Genevieve Boshoff
(NNL)
Nuclear fuel and associated waste that results
from the degradation of fuel cladding (referred to
as sludge) is stored in a variety of facilities at
Sellafield site. There is a requirement to recover
the stored fuel and associated sludge in order to
reduce the hazard associated with the facilities
and in order to progress decommissioning of the
site. Some of the storage facilities (open fuel

storage ponds) are exposed to the environment

and hence there is a deposition of organic
material and nutrients, as a result the fuel ponds
experience periodic extended algal blooms. Algal
blooms significantly reduce visibility within the
ponds and hence impact on fuel and sludge
recovery operations, which require good visibility.
Delays in waste retrieval due to algal blooms could
considerably extend decommissioning timescales,
hence increasing overall decommissioning costs
and increasing the hazard associated with the
storage facility. Algal blooms also result in the
accumulation of contaminated organic matter
(dead and decaying algae) which can add to the
overall sludge waste volume and the burden on
effluent treatment plants. There is therefore an
interest in developing an understanding of algal
systems and the application of methods to control
or eliminate algal growth.
A variety of algal control techniques have been
considered and assessed for application in
nuclear fuel storage facilities with varying degrees
of success. One promising approach currently
being assessed for plant trials is the use of
biocides. In order to support the successful
implementation of such technology it will be
necessary to:
Identify the microbial communities causing the
problem in key facilities.
Develop a test system, utilising appropriate
strains.

Establish
factors
triggering/controlling
algal/microbial growth.
Understand the effectiveness of algal control
techniques (initially focussing on biocides) for
different strains of algae.
Understand the optimum dosing arrangements
(e.g. optimum dose concentration, frequency and

timing).
Explore alternative technologies (should biocide
dosing
be
unsustainable,
or
require
complementary techniques).
This study will provide information to evaluate
and optimise algal control approaches, with an
aim to inform the deployment strategy within the
fuel storage ponds. In some cases, algal biomass
may not dominate the biomass blooms, and here
we will assess the appropriate method of control.
The information derived from the Eng Doc would
complement experience developed from ongoing
plant trials.
We seek a motivated graduate in biochemical
engineering,
chemical
engineering
or
biotechnology/biology. The successful applicant
will be based in the Nuclear Engineering
Development Facilities in Cumbria and also work
closely with the academic supervisors, with access
to Manchesters state of the art laboratories in the
Faculty of Life Science, and the Williamson
Research Centre for Molecular Environmental
Science. They will also work closely with effluent
and biotechnology specialists from the UKs
National Nuclear Laboratory (through industrial
supervision and through working with the
Effluent and Environmental Science Team),
representatives from Sellafield Ltd Effluent
Centre of Expertise and those from Sellafield Ltd
decommissioning projects.
For further details contact:
jon.lloyd@manchester.ac.uk

Radiation damage makes Fe(III)

minerals more bioavailable for
microbial
reduction.
A
collaboration between Williamson

Research Centre, Research Centre

for Radwaste & Disposal and
Dalton Cumbrian Facility
Posted on September 9, 2014 by OliverStreet1

.entry-meta
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es503249r

The impact of radiation on the bioavailability of Fe(III)

minerals for microbial respiration
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es503249r/suppl_file/es50324
9r_si_001.pdf

Access to the National

Nuclear Laboratory Central
Laboratory
The University of Manchester, through an agreement with the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), has secured an access
arrangement with the UK National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) to
use state-of-the-art facilities at the NNL Central Laboratory located
on the Sellafield site in Cumbria. These world-leading laboratories
are capable of handling uranium, plutonium and other highly

radioactive materials, including nuclear waste. The NNL Central

Laboratory is complemented by facilities available at the Dalton
Cumbrian Facility; together these two sites act as a national hub
for active materials and chemistry research in the UK.
EPS 2 col, left, Versatile end EPS 2 col, left, Versatile

Academic access to National

Nuclear Laboratory facilities

NNL employs around 750 technical staff representing the bulk of

the UK's civil nuclear research and technology development
capability outside our universities. NNL is headquartered at the
Central Laboratory on Sellafield, one of the world's largest and
most complex nuclear sites, and operates a series of facilities
across the UK.
The University of Manchester and the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority (NDA) maintain an agreement that allows academic
access to the National Nuclear Laboratory's flagship research and

development facilities at Sellafield. In all, 10% of the NNL's Central

Laboratory is available for academic research, and can be
accessed by any UK university.
The NDA funds the overhead costs associated with academic
research at Central Laboratory; universities must fund their direct
project costs.

Central Laboratory

NNL Central Laboratory is an integrated research and

development facility established with an initial investment of over
250 million. When fully operational, the Central Laboratory will be
the most advanced nuclear research facility in the world.
EPS 2 col, left, Versatile end EPS 2 col, left, Versatile

Key facilities

Highly active alpha/beta/gamma cells (awaiting active

commissioning)
Active laboratories for plutonium
Low active and inactive laboratories
A uranium active rig-hall
A non-active rig-hall incorporating vitrification test rig
The supporting infrastructure and workshop space for over 300
technologists
Variety of electron microscopes and mass spectrometry systems
Central Laboratory provides the complete range of facilities to
support all technology disciplines and levels of radioactivity
necessary for research programmes across the nuclear fuel cycle.
These include: oxide and metal fuel reprocessing, high-level waste
vitrification, intermediate level waste treatment and storage, mixed
oxide fuel production, and decontamination and decommissioning.
EPS 2 col, left, Versatile end EPS 2 col, left, Versatile

Workington Laboratory

The University of Manchester also provides academics with access

to NNL's Workington complex, which provides the infrastructure to

allow researchers to develop large-scale demonstrations of new

technology and engineering concepts.
This Workington facility incorporates a large engineering rig hall
with craneage capability of 3-60 tonnes, space for the construction
and operation of large-scale engineering test rigs, a large water pit
to mimic fuel storage pond conditions, and engineering workshops.
The facility also has a large office area and extensive storage
space for equipment.

Latest News ...

2nd December 2014

Agreement signed on guarantee scheme for

Moorside

NuGeneration Limited (NuGen) has signed a cooperation agreement with HM Treasury to promote
financing for a new nuclear power station at Moorside,
West Cumbria.
The agreement establishes a process to enable access to
the UK Guarantee Scheme. The UK Guarantee Scheme
was introduced in 2012 to accelerate investments in
major infrastructure projects, and is a key component of
any future financing structure for new low-carbon power
plants.
NuGen and HM Treasury will work together to see how
the Scheme can support arrangement of external project
finance for Moorside, set to be the UKs largest new
nuclear power station project.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, said:
Were happy to have signed this agreement with NuGen.
Investment in a new generation of civil nuclear power is
part of our long term economic plan to provide Britain
with the energy it needs for decades to come.
Weve already done a lot to support new investment
through our changes to the planning regime, the Generic
Design Approval process and reforms to the electricity
market. The Guarantee Scheme is another way in which
we can help companies to make the huge investment

that building new nuclear power involves.

Sandy Rupprecht, Chief Executive of NuGen, welcomed
the news.
The signing of this co-operation agreement with HM
Treasury is another demonstration of NuGens forward
momentum as we power forward with our Moorside
project in West Cumbria.
NuGen, supported by its parent companies, Toshiba and
GDF SUEZ, is taking forward the project, which will see
three Westinghouse AP1000 reactors built on land to the
north and west of the Sellafield complex in West
Cumbria.
The first reactor is expected to be connected to the grid
by the end of 2024 with all three providing 3.4 GW of
power by the end of 2026. The development will be the
largest new nuclear development in Europe and the
biggest nuclear output from a single UK power station.
NuGen expects to have the full range of licences and
permissions in place for the development, ahead of a
Final Investment Decision (FID) in 2018.
http://www.nugeneration.com/news-02122014.html
NuGen is a UK nuclear joint venture between Toshiba and ENGIE.
NuGens Moorside Project aims to develop a new generation nuclear
power station of up to 3.8 gigawatts (GW)* nominal gross electrical
capacity on land in West Cumbria, North West England
http://www.nugeneration.com/download/About_NuGen_Sept-2016AW.pdf
Site Speci c Design Basis for the project and information required
to license the nuclear power plant, consent its development, and
obtain the necessary permits to construct and operate the Moorside
Nuclear Power Station
http://www.nugeneration.com/download/Site_Assessment_Works_No
v_2015.pdf
Site Assessment Update (April 2016)
http://www.nugeneration.com/download/Site_Assessment_Update_A
pril-2016.pdf
About- Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor (October 2015)
The AP1000 reactor is the most advanced nuclear power plant
design in the global market. It is a next-generation Pressurised
Water Reactor (PWR) that builds on the proven success of the
standard Westinghouse PWR design.
http://www.nugeneration.com/download/About_AP1000_Reactor_Nu
Gen.pdf

Moorside_Enviromental_Update_Sept_2016
NuGen is a UK nuclear joint venture between Toshiba and ENGIE.
NuGens Moorside Project aims to develop a new generation nuclear
power station of up to 3.8 gigawatts (GW)* nominal gross electrical
capacity on land in West Cumbria, North West England.
http://www.nugeneration.com/download/Moorside_Enviromental_Upd
ate_Sept_2016.pdf
Our newsletter, Company Update, is designed to keep our
stakeholders informed on how our plans for new nuclear power at
Moorside are progressing. - Company update (Winter 2014)
http://www.nugeneration.com/download/Company_update_Winter_2
014.pdf
NuGens Sustainability report (July 2014 July 2015)
http://www.nugeneration.com/download/Sustainability_ReportAW.PDF

SCOTTISHPOWER LAUNCHES
'POWERUP' - TRANSFORMING
THE WAY TO BUY ENERGY
16/09/2016

New technology puts consumers in full

control of their energy spend
ScottishPower has simplified the way customers can purchase
gas and electricity with the launch of PowerUp. Using a
model similar to how people fill up their cars at the petrol
station, for the first-time ever, consumers will be able to
purchase days of gas and electricity, with an app that allows
them to keep an eye on their gauge, to manage their usage.
ScottishPower is responding to customer feedback calling for
more transparency, simpler billing and greater convenience
when it comes to understanding and managing their energy
usage.

PowerUp allows customers to buy fuel in packages from one

day, to a month, up to 180 days, upfront at a set price.
Customers will track their usage via a new app, allowing them
to easily understand their total spend in relation to what they
use and how much they pay on a daily basis. There will be no
standing charges for customers paying via PowerUp, so if no
energy is used on a given day, no charges will be applied.
Neil Clitheroe, Global Retail Director said: Energy bills can
be complicated, with customer research showing that 6 in 10
people dont fully understand how their bill is calculated .
Kilowatt hours, therms and calorific values are not terms that
are easy to understand. Energy bills have consistently been
voted the most confusing bills that consumers receive.
Currently most people either pay a flat amount each month by
direct debit or receive a quarterly bill in arrears. Either way
there is very little connection between actual energy usage
and how much a customer pays. Both of these factors have
helped contribute to many customers feeling disengaged from
their energy usage and indeed their energy supplier.

But filling up a car at the petrol station is different. When we

top up, we dont tend to think about the 40 litres of unleaded in
the tank instead we think about the 50 that it has cost and
how long it will last. Yet we all know that if we travel a bit
further or faster than usual, that it will last a bit less than usual.
Our fuel gauge then keeps us right in terms of when we next
need to top up. Customers are far more engaged with
efficiently managing their petrol consumption, and we think
that will work for gas and electricity at home.
PowerUp is the start of the age of personalised tariffs, and
will use real consumption data to calculate a personal daily
price. We believe it will encourage customers to be more
conscious of their energy usage, because they will want to
make their days last longer.
PowerUp will initially be exclusively available to ScottishPower
customers, from early October 2016. This reinforces
ScottishPowers commitment to ensure that existing customers
get access to the best tariffs and products. PowerUp packages
will include ScottishPowers most competitive prices, and the
company will consider when PowerUp will be launched to the
wider market.
Notes to Editors:
PowerUp: buy, track, save. How it works:

Customers can buy days of gas and electricity via the mobile app from one to 180 days.
Days are based on a personalised forecast of how much energy
an individual customer requires. ScottishPower uses detailed
consumption history to calculate daily usage based on the time of
the year.
There is no standing charge for customers paying via PowerUp.
Customers can track how much energy they use, to see when they
next need to PowerUp. Customers can view past and forecast
consumption to help them better understand their energy spend.
If an existing customer wants to register for PowerUp, they simply
visit www.scottishpower.co.uk/powerup . Its a quick and
straightforward process, with detailed information and videos to
show customers how to use and make the most of PowerUp.
The PowerUp app will be available for download soon for iPhone,
iPad and Android

CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE

Corporate Governance System

Scottish Power Limited is the unlisted country
subholding company of the Iberdrola Group in the
United Kingdom that holds the stakes in the head of
business companies relating to generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity, energy
management and supply of gas and electricity that
pursue their activities in the country.
The main responsibility of Scottish Power Limited,
which has its own Board of Directors containing
independent directors and has its own management
team, is to disclose, implement and ensure
compliance with the policies, strategies and general
guidelines of the Iberdrola Group in the United
Kingdom and it centralizes the provision of common
services to the head of business companies, in

accordance at all times with the provisions of the

applicable legislation and, in particular, the regulations
regarding the separation of regulated activities.
Scottish Power Limited pursues its activity in the
United Kingdom through the following head of
business companies: Scottish Power Energy Networks
Holdings Limited, which engages in the activities of
transmission and distribution of electricity; Scottish
Power Generation Holdings Limited which engages in
the activities of generation portfolio of coal, hydro, gas
and biomass generation and; ScottishPower
Renewable Energy Limited, which engages in the
activities of renewable energy industry.
The head of business companies have their own
Boards of Directors and have the necessary autonomy
to carry out the day-to-day management and effective
administration of their businesses, as well as
responsibility for their ordinary control.
In discharging these responsibilities and in the
exercise of its decision-making powers, Scottish Power
Limited has approved its own Memorandum and
Articles of Association and internal corporate
governance rules, and its competent bodies have
adopted the Mission, Vision and Values of the Iberdrola
Group , corporate policies and other internal codes
and procedures that make up the corporate
governance system of IBERDROLA, S.A., as well as the
specific rules or regulations to implement or
supplement it.
MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF SCOTTISH
POWER LIMITED 27/02/09
http://www.scottishpower.com/userfiles/file/MemorandumandArticles
ofAssociation.pdf

INTERNAL CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE RULES
All of the Internal Corporate
Governance Rules concerning
ScottishPower can be viewed through

the links below:

Regulations of the Scottish Power Limited Board of

Directors [PDF]
Approved by the Board of Directors of Scottish Power
Ltd. on February 9, 2011.
Regulations of the Scottish Power Limited Audit and
Compliance Committee [PDF]
Approved by the Board of Directors of Scottish Power
Ltd. on April 15, 2015.
Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Scottish
Power Generation Holdings Limited Board of Directors
[PDF]
Approved by the Board of Directors of Scottish Power
Generation Holdings Limited on March 24, 2011.
Regulations of the Scottish Power Generation Holdings
Limited Board of Directors
Approved by the Board of Directors of Scottish Power
Generation Holdings Limited on December 10, 2013.
Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Scottish
Power Energy Networks Holdings Limited Board of
Directors [PDF]
Approved by the Board of Directors of Scottish Energy
Networks Holdings Limited on March 8, 2011.
Regulations of the Scottish Power Energy Networks
Holdings Limited Board of Directors
Approved by the Board of Directors of Scottish Power
Energy Networks Holdings Limited on March 8, 2011.
Memorandum and Articles of Association of the
ScottishPower Renewable Energy Limited Board of
Directors [PDF]
Approved by the Board of Directors of ScottishPower
Renewable Energy Limited on March 7, 2012.
Regulations of the ScottishPower Renewable Energy
Limited Board of Directors
Approved by the Board of Directors of ScottishPower
Renewable Energy Limited on March 7, 2012.

http://www.scottishpower.com/pages/internal_corporate_governance
_rules.aspx

EIA sees strong growth in nuclear

generation to 2040
12 May 2016

Global nuclear electricity generation is expected to almost

double by 2040, according to the latest projection by the US
Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration
(EIA). Most of this growth will be in the developing world, it
said.

World net electricity generation by energy source, 2012-2040, in trillion kWh (Image:
EIA)

Releasing the latest edition of its International Energy Outlook

yesterday, the EIA said total world energy consumption will increase
by almost 50%, from 549 quadrillion British thermal units in 2012
to 815 quadrillion Btu in 2040. This growth will be driven by
industrialization in non-OECD countries, especially in Asia, the EIA
said.
"Developing Asia accounts for more than half of the projected
increase in global energy use through 2040," said EIA administrator
Adam Sieminski. "This increase will have a profound effect on the
development of world energy markets." By 2040, almost two-thirds
of the world's primary energy will be consumed in the non-OECD
economies, according to the EIA.
Although consumption of non-fossil fuels is expected to grow faster
than consumption of fossil fuels, fossil fuels will still account for
78% of primary energy in use in 2040. Coal will be the world's
slowest growing energy source, rising by 0.6% annually from 153
quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 180 quadrillion Btu in 2040. China, the
USA and India will remaining the top three coal-consuming
countries, together accounting for more than 70% of world coal use.
Natural gas consumption will grow 1.9% annually over the same
period.
According to the EIA, global electricity generation will increase by
69% between 2012 and 2040, from 21.6 trillion kWh in 2012 to
25.8 trillion kWh in 2020 and 36.5 trillion kWh in 2040.
While renewable energy sources are projected to be the world's

fastest growing energy source for electricity production between

2012 and 2040, growing an average 2.9% annually, nuclear energy
will be the third fastest growing after natural gas. Global nuclear
generating capacity is expected to see 2.3% annual growth between
2012 and 2040, from 2.3 trillion kilowatt-hours to 4.5 trillion kWh.
Its share of total primary energy over this period will increase from
4% to 6%.
"Concerns about energy security and greenhouse gas emissions
support the development of new nuclear generating capacity," the
EIA said. China alone, which plans to add 139 GWe of nuclear
capacity by 2040, accounting for 61% of world nuclear capacity
growth.
Among OECD countries, only South Korea has a "sizeable increase"
in nuclear generating capacity (15 GWe), the EIA notes. However,
reactor shutdowns in Canada and Europe, together with reduced
capacity in Japan, will see an overall drop of 6 GWe in nuclear
capacity in OECD nations by 2040.
Despite the move towards lower-carbon energy sources, energyrelated CO2 emissions are projected to increase from 32 billion
tonnes in 2012 to 36 billion tonnes in 2020 and then to 43 billion
tonnes in 2040, a 34% increase from 2012 to 2040. "Much of the
growth in emissions is attributed to developing non-OECD nations,
many of which continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels to meet the
fast-paced growth of energy demand," the EIA said.

Future nuclear supply chain worth

billions, report finds
14 September 2016

Nuclear power plant construction, long-term plant operation

and decommissioning all offer potential multi-billion dollar
markets over the next two decades, according to a newly
released supply chain report from the World Nuclear
Association.
With nuclear power generating worldwide revenues of about $300
billion a year for electricity utilities, The World Nuclear Supply Chain
Outlook 2035 provides a market-oriented view of challenges and
opportunities under three scenarios. In the reference scenario, the
number of nuclear reactors grows from 444 operating reactors, as
of July 2016, to 462 by 2025, and 547 by 2035. The upper case
scenario sees a rise to 530 by 2025 and 720 by 2035, while the
lower scenario sees little new construction and a fall to 362 units by
2035.
Under the reference case, revenues from operating nuclear power
plants are expected to grow by 2.8% per year over the next 20
years to reach some $500 billion a year, with 62% of the growth
occurring in the emerging industrial economies (the non-OECD area,
including China). Investment in new nuclear build to 2035 is of the

order of $1.5 trillion, with significant international procurement of

$24-30 billion a year after 2025 (up from about $6-10 billion a year
currently).
The value of the investment required to keep existing reactors in
long-term operation could amount to $50-100 billion, with about $4
billion per year in international procurement.
The market for decommissioning is also substantial, with
decommissioning work on projects involving immediate dismantling
by 2035 potentially worth up to $111 billion. This includes at least
$12.4 billion as the estimated cost for cleaning up the Fukushima
Daiichi site, and at least $24.2 billion for decommissioning as
Germany moves to phase out its nuclear power plants.
Eleven consolidated technology vendors from Canada, China,
France, India, Japan, Russia and the USA today offer their services
across much of the nuclear fuel cycle, and other significant
technology vendors - such as BWX Technologies, Doosan and OMZSkoda - are internationally active. Each has built up a supply chain
that is increasingly global in scope, and the leading vendors are, for
the most part, internationally diversified in terms of their corporate
make-up and supplier base, the report notes.

Choke points relieved

Competitive pressures has encourage localization of manufacturing,
joint ventures and international procurement, resulting in materials,
semi-processed and complete fabrications perhaps crossing several
borders before reaching their final destination for assembly and
installation.
A competitive global market exists for the construction and
procurement of nuclear power plants. Several factors, including the
cancellation of some planned plants following the Fukushima Daiichi
accident, investment by existing suppliers and the transfer of
technology and localization, particularly to China, mean that "choke
points" in the supply chain identified a decade ago - notably in
terms of heavy forging capacity - do not exist at present.
Bottlenecks could, however, re-emerge in the event of multiple
reactor orders being issued at the same time.
"Globalization has become as much part of the scene for nuclear as
it is for other industries," the report notes. "The World Nuclear
Association believes that the system for import and export between
countries should be reviewed to streamline procedures while
preserving a sound safeguards regime," it says.

Export control
The existing export control regime places the nuclear industry at a
disadvantage in comparison with industries such as aerospace and
defence, the report notes. Most export control authorities do not
issue general export licences for nuclear-related items.

Instead, the report calls for the degree of scrutiny accorded to

nuclear technology to be risk-based. "A nuclear power reactor poses
a low technology risk with respect to proliferation. The same is true
for components, spare parts, and maintenance or repair services for
an existing nuclear facility that is subject to international
safeguards. Under a risk-based approach the export of components
and complete power reactors should be made possible under
general authorization, without a prior individual licence, to another
country that is a participating state in the Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG), subject to notification being provided to the national
authorities of the exporting and importing countries concerned.
Within free trade areas, like the European Unions single market,
shipments should be notifiable but otherwise unrestricted," it says.
Enrichment and reprocessing technologies are associated with a
higher proliferation risk and there is a "greater justification" for
licensing such transactions through individual export licences.
"Export control authorities should be able to recognize good private
sector practice by extending authorized (or trusted) economic
operator status to companies that apply diligently a robust and
comprehensive internal compliance program to their operations,"
the report notes. "In the longer run, international trade and
investment agreements can help to lower the technical and
administrative barriers to trade."
Greg Kaser, senior project manager at the World Nuclear
Association, said: "The Supply Chain report supplements and
expands on the World Nuclear Association's biennial nuclear fuel
report, looking in more depth at the supply side of the question and
taking into account developments seen since the publication of last
year's edition of the Nuclear Fuel Report."

Fusion materials modelling moves up a gear |

31/08/2016
A project involving CCFE and Japanese researchers could aid
designers of the first fusion powerplants by giving them accurate
predictions of how metallic components will perform inside reactors.

Fusion reactors will burn fuel in a very hot gas or 'plasma' to produce
high-speed neutrons whose energy can be turned into electricity.
However, any metal that comes into contact with the neutrons when
they exit the fusion plasma will be damaged over time. Defects appear
in the materials crystalline structure, putting a limit on the metals
lifespan.
Selecting robust materials will therefore be vital for key components,
such as the divertor the reactors exhaust system and the systems,
known as 'blankets', that will store fusion energy and breed fuel in a
power station.
The new research, published in Nature Scientific Reports, explores a
type of defect motion that greatly accelerates the recovery from damage
to metals from neutron bombardment. Smaller defects gradually
coalesce into larger ones, which actually helps to reduce embrittlement
as the number of obstacles decreases. The motion, called conservative
climb, has been observed since the 1960s but never quantitatively
explained until now.
CCFEs Thomas Swinburne worked with experimentalists from Shimane
University, Osaka University and Tohoku University to model
conservative climb using hundreds of atomic-scale simulations.
He said: Materials in a fusion environment are subject to intense
irradiation this creates a large number of very small crystal defects
which make the material brittle. This is arguably the most important
fusion materials problem, as if the material is too brittle it will crack and
fail.
We've modelled a mechanism for how these very small defects group
together for the first time, finding very good agreement with
experiments. We used data from tests in Japan with high purity
tungsten and iron an important benchmark for fusion materials
modelling.

The rate of this defect coalescence is a key parameter that will help us
understand how materials can become less brittle, enabling their use in
a fusion reactor. We are confident that our model can be used to
accurately track the evolution of a fusion components mechanical
structure during reactor operation.
Our results will help to estimate the operating conditions and the
lifetimes of structural reactor components in DEMO, the demonstration
power station that will be the first plant to put fusion electricity on to the
grid.
Image:

A dislocation loop in tungsten. Just like a hump on a carpet, dislocations

(the hump) are formed by severely bending a crystal (the carpet). To
see dislocations, we must remove the carpet, leaving only the hump.
Typically, these loops move like a ring on a pipe, but the new research
shows that with conservative climb they can move sideways, which
significantly influences the mechanical behaviour following irradiation.