from Sunday Herald, 22 January 2012
The company that runs the nuclear reactors at Hunterston in North Ayrshire is warning that their safety could be jeopardised by plans to build a huge, new coal-fired power station next door.
EDF Energy says that the construction and operation of the controversial new plant could block the evacuation of staff and deprive its site of electricity and vital cooling water in an emergency. The French nuclear company is also worried that discharges from the coal plant could compromise reactor cooling systems.
EDF Energy has lodged and maintained a formal objection to an application by Ayrshire Power to build a £3 billion coal station at Hunterston. Ayrshire Power was set up by Peel Holdings, a property company that owns Clydeport, the operator of west coast ports including one at Hunterston.
Following rejection of the application by North Ayrshire Council in November, the Scottish Government has now confirmed that it will go to a public inquiry later this year. It is one of the most disputed planning applications in Scotland, sparking over 20,000 objections.
Colin Weir, EDF’s station director at Hunterston, told the government that a series of discussions with Ayrshire Power “have not yet been able to adequately demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable impact on the safety and operational efficiency of Hunterston”.
Ayrshire Power wanted to deal with EDF’s concerns after the application had won approval. But this was rejected by EDF because of its “paramount concern for the safety of the public, its employees and the environment”.
In an earlier submission, EDF highlighted a series of potential safety problems caused by having a coal-fired plant on a neighbouring site. It said that it was hoping to extend the operation of the Hunterston reactors by at least five years beyond the currently scheduled closure date of 2016.
The company pointed out that the planning application failed to say how an access road vital for evacuating people if there was an accident would be kept open. It didn’t consider the impact of a fire at the coal plant, or how to evacuate construction workers.
Because the new plant would use the same electricity transmission lines as the nuclear reactors, this could inhibit power supplies in an emergency, EDF warned. And parts of the development could damage pipelines essential for delivering cooling water in the event of an unexpected shutdown.
EDF expressed concern that large amounts of heated seawater due to be discharged by the new plant could compromise its use of seawater for cooling reactors. “This is an issue of major operational and safety concern,” the company said, adding that it was “unable to confirm if the safe operation of Hunterston can be maintained.”
EDF also alleged that Ayrshire Power’s plans would breach government policy because they failed to curb carbon pollution from the outset. The new plant “cannot be described as a ‘clean’ coal-fired power station as this will rely primarily upon subsequent retro-fitting of carbon capture and storage technology”, EDF said.
Environmental groups argued that a complex, expensive and lengthy public inquiry now looked inevitable. “This is frustrating,” said Aedán Smith from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Scotland, representing a broad coalition of opposition groups.
“It’s hard to envisage how such an almost universally unwanted proposal could ever be granted consent, but we are prepared to keep fighting until it is refused – or Ayrshire Power finally see sense.”
But Ayrshire Power insisted that it remained “totally committed” to progressing its plans for Hunterston. “We are in ongoing dialogue with EDF Energy and believe that all of the matters raised by them can be addressed at the appropriate time,” said the company’s project director, Muir Miller.
A spokeswoman for EDF Energy confirmed that it had raised a number of concerns that would not be addressed until the technical design has been finalised. “This is still the case,” she said. “It is too early say what, if any, response we will make to any public inquiry.”
Comments