Nuclear mattersU.K.: New nuclear reactors might not stand up to terrorist attacks

Published 18 February 2010

Last September the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected the Westinghouse-Toshiba design for a new reactor because a key component might not withstand events like earthquakes and tornadoes; this week, the U.K.’s nuclear safety watchdog said it might decide to reject the same reactor design because it could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks

One of the two new nuclear reactor designs being considered for use in Britain may not be strong enough to withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner, which could stop the technology being licensed in Britain, the U.K.’s nuclear safety watchdog said yesterday. The claim from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) that the design could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks is a blow for the American-Japanese group that is behind the AP1000 reactor type.

Toshiba-Westinghouse sees the United Kingdom as a significant growth market and hopes that the technology can play a big role in plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain. Times’s Robin Pagnamenta writes that the other day, however, the NII raised its concerns in an official letter, which insisted that Toshiba-Westinghouse provide fresh evidence that the design was sufficiently strong to withstand “external shocks” before it could be considered for a UK licence.

Kevin Allars, the NII director responsible for a detailed safety review of the two reactor technologies earmarked for Britain — the AP1000 and the EPR, a French design from Areva — told the Times that any new reactor must be able to “withstand an external shock, such as an earthquake, extreme weather or a strike from an aircraft”. He said that the standards were contained in the NII’s Safety Assessment Principles, set by the security services.

The NII, he said, was concerned that a new design method proposed by Toshiba-Westinghouse, aimed at speeding up construction and cutting costs, could mean that the reactor’s exterior concrete shell would be less robust than a conventionally built nuclear power plant.

The letter said that Toshiba-Westinghouse’s proposed “modular” approach to construction, where large components are built off-site and then transported in for assembly, was not proven. It raised questions about the strength of the external fabric of the building, which uses a concrete and steel sandwich structure. Traditional methods, adopted by the EPR, involve reinforced concrete is poured in situ.

Allars expressed confidence that the concerns could be resolved. “This is not a showstopper. But we need to resolve these concerns before we can proceed.”

Mike Tynan, chief executive of Westinghouse U.K., acknowledged that there was “a significant amount of work that needs to be done” to secure a license and said it was right that the AP1000 design should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The company said that ten AP1000 plants were already on order, four in China and six in the United States.

Pagnamenta writes that Horizon Nuclear Power, a joint venture between E.ON and RWE, is considering ordering the AP1000 for two new nuclear stations at Oldbury, in Gloucestershire, and Wylfa, on Anglesey. Each reactor is expected to cost up to £4 billion to build.

Tynan said that the letter was part of a normal regulatory procedure. “The matters highlighted are not new and we have been working with the regulators for some months towards a plan to provide them with the assurances and information they need.” He believed that this could be achieved by mid-2011.

Note that this is the second blow to the Toshiba-Westinghouse venture. Last fall, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rejected the Westinghouse design for a new reactor because a key component might not withstand events like earthquakes and tornadoes. The rejection raised the possibility of delays in building fourteen planned reactors in the United States. Westinghouse, which is owned by Toshiba, promised to conduct tests as quickly as possible to try to satisfy the agency staff that the design was sound (“NRC Rejects Westinghouse’s New Nuclear Reactor Design,” 24 October 2009 HSNW).

Pagnamenta writes that the government may have given a green light to new nuclear power plants two years ago, but it will be the end of 2017 before the first one starts to generate electricity — and even then, only if everything runs like clockwork. It is not merely the huge costs and the planning disputes that are holding things up. “The industry regulator is in the midst of a titanic effort to approve two new reactor designs for use in the U.K. Neither of these is yet generating electricity anywhere in the world, intensifying the drive to make sure they will be safe and reliable for decades to come,” he writes.

Dozens of nuclear engineers are now employed full-time by the NII on the project, as well as dozens of support staff and contractors. It will still be eighteen months before either design can be approved. “Only after the NII has granted a reactor licence can EDF, RWE and E.ON, the energy companies that want to build reactors in the U.K., submit a proper planning application for the sites they have selected. The first concrete will not be poured before 2013,” he concludes.