Worst case scenarios
London – The UK government has asked Dr Mike Weightman, the UK’s chief nuclear inspector to report on the implications of the still unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan on existing and new plants in this country.
Soundings, however, from Chris Huhne, secretary of state for Energy and Climate Change suggest that the exercise will be more about reassuring the public than a root-and-branch examination of all aspects of nuclear safety.
“Safety is and will continue to be the number one priority for existing nuclear sites and for any new power stations,” said Huhne. “I want to ensure that any lessons learned from Mike Weightman’s report are applied to the UK’s new build programme.”
Any such review will likely rely heavily on metrics and standards developed by regulators, the industry and safety experts over many years.
According to Weightman, his report will be based on “the best technical advice, consulting nationally and internationally with colleagues and organisations who, like us, have the safety and security of people and society uppermost in our minds.”
However, in leading this review, Weightman might also reflect on the seeming inability of experts and authorities to allow for the type of worse-case scenarios now happening at the Fukushima facility.
With hindsight, alarms bells should have been ringing worldwide for many years about the dangers posed by ageing nuclear plants in locations prone to extreme earthquakes and tsunamis.
Similarly, it took the BP Macondo disaster to make the oil & gas industry and regulatory agencies in the US and worldwide aware of the potential dire consequences of drilling for oil in extreme deepwater locations.
The tragic events of the past week demand a radical new approach to ensuring the safety of nuclear and, indeed, all hazardous industrial operations – not whitewash.
Readers' comments (4)
Phil Kearn | 18 Mar 2011 2:17 pm
Perhaps seperating the Nuclear Inspectorate from the Health and Safety Executive is not the wisest move?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
W Barnett | 18 Mar 2011 10:25 pm
The difficulty is not, as suggested, recognising what could go wrong but in accepting it will and so be fully prepared in expecting the unexpected.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul | 21 Mar 2011 7:59 am
I know we are going down the nuclear road to reduce polution from other industries. But when it goes wrong nuclear does more damage than any other. Man just cannot deal with the problems it creates. the waste is a massive problem. we need to improve coal burning, wave and wind power. It is our planet we have to live here so lets be very careful how we treat it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Card | 2 Apr 2011 1:50 am
AS a retired electrician I emailed Dr Weightman with a one paragraph summary of technical recommendations I made in a report submitted in 2007 by my MP to Home Secretary.
This is about reliability of backup generators including sabotage techniques consistent with the IRA Garland Plan.
In 2007 the NHS introduced new security of electrical supply regs which may be a model Dr Weightman would like to consider.
I received an email reply within the hour from Dr Weightman inviting a copy of the full report I wrote in 2007. I copied and bound it. My MP submitted it and Chris Huhne's office have written to acknowledge receipt and to thank me.
So I would say Dr Weightman is being pretty thorough.
One problem, not yet addressed I think, is that failures of hospital backup generators are not designated as reportable incidents under HSAW Act.
Hence the many failure incidents experienced by NHS do not feature as obligatory independent technical investigated HSE reports.
So inquiries by Nuclear Inspectorate such as into three backup failures at Dounreay have no analogous failures records to look for unreliability patterns or modus operandi.
I am pleased with Dr Weightman's response to me and I hope my submission may achieve some good as it appears to have done with NHS regs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment