Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Drive to clear Dounreay of radioactive hazards goes under the sea



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 August 2008
WORK to remove one of the most persistent problems affecting the clean-up of the Dounreay nuclear site has begun beneath the waves off Caithness.
A remotely operated vehicle is combing the seabed to find the worst of the radioactive particles that have caused concern for more than quarter of a century.

Up to £25 million will be spent on covering an area the size of 60 football pitches and
on monitoring up to the 2020s.

The first phase of the operation, which will run until the end of September, is expected to provide information on the effectiveness of the system and help plan further work. Weather conditions will limit the operation to May-September each year.

Simon Middlemass, managing director of Dounreay Site Restoration, the firm contracted to clean up and close Dounreay, said: "The start of seabed clean-up heralds an important phase in the closure programme.

"We've made significant progress in recent years to clean up and dismantle the site itself. Now we are cleaning up off-site, a legacy that has cast a shadow over the site for too long."

But Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth, said: "This reminds us that the impacts of the nuclear industry were more widespread and expensive to deal with than anticipated. It is a lesson to those with misplaced enthusiasm for a new generation of nuclear facilities.

"It's welcome that the scale of the problem is being recognised and being cleaned up appropriately but it's sad that we have had these particles loose in the environment for a long period. I hope we have learned the lessons for the future."

Particles, or hotspots, are fragments of irradiated nuclear fuel discharged into the sea during the 1960s and 1970s. The most hazardous ones are near an old discharge point on the seabed and their disintegration is believed to contribute to the number of smaller particles found on nearby beaches.

They were discovered in 1983 and since then they have been found on the seabed and on the Dounreay foreshore as well as other sites, including a public beach at nearby Sandside.

The scale of the problem was only realised by the UK Atomic Energy Authority in the late 1990s. Particles were removed from beaches; those on the seabed were only monitored.

Divers were later used to map the area of particles and remove any found before this was considered too dangerous.

Then last year, after a two-year consultation, it was decided to remove the most hazardous offshore particles while continuing to recover those on beaches.

Particle removal is one of the biggest issues facing the site, due to be decommissioned within 25 years at a cost of £2.9 billion.

The independent Dounreay Particles Advisory Group estimates 1,500 hotspots big enough to cause significant damage to health are in the sediment. A further 6,000 smaller, less hazardous particles may also be in the area close to a 2km radius fisheries exclusion zone.

The undersea vehicle carries radiation detection equipment and a suction system that can retrieve particles buried up to 50cm down. It digs out a "cone" and filters out the particles, returning the sand to the seabed.

Last week a report showed nine particles were found on Sandside beach between July and December 2007, bringing to 103 the number of particles found there since 1984. The number found on the Dounreay foreshore is now 252.

Range of options looked at – but doing nothing was not one

DOUNREAY managers decided to recover the particles which pose the greatest risk to health after a two-year research and consultation exercise.

Originally, 24 options were looked at, which were narrowed down to 11 and, finally, one best practicable environmental option.

Among the suggestions ruled out was the possibility of using lasers to break down the particles, and training dolphins to remove them.

It was also considered impractical to remove every particle and too costly to dredge the whole seabed.

Other ideas were to continue monitoring without removal, or to restrict access offshore or to affected beaches.

However, the consultation showed clearly that doing nothing was not an option. It showed that those questioned wanted the particles cleaned up both onshore and offshore, while keeping the cost down.

Consultants Entec took the views of eight groups, including local people, staff and contractors and national bodies.

They also held workshops and exhibitions and issued a questionnaire.

Overall, environmental criteria for tackling the particles were given the highest rating, followed by social and economic issues. Among locals, social and economic issues were seen as more important while safety concerns were least important.

Dredging the seabed, and restricting access to beaches, were not supported.





The full article contains 795 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 August 2008 9:28 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Guga II,

Rockall 26/08/2008 00:41:36
That's the problem with nuclear power, all the radioactive garbage left behind.
2

Boy Wonder,

26/08/2008 00:48:48
When the operation is over ... expect a glowing report!!!
3

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 26/08/2008 04:08:15
Under the sea?Never mind the local hotspots.What about the time bomb in the deeper reaches of the Atlantic,where nuclear waste was dumped prior to 1960's onwards? Or this is another 'shhhhhh don't say a word moment'? The ships regularly sailed from Cairnryan to be sunk in the middle of the ocean.Common knowledge in Stranraer. Answers please?
4

David MacVicar,

web 26/08/2008 06:53:35
"due to be decommissioned within 25 years at a cost of £2.9 billion."

LMAO. Yeah, sure it will.

Back to Reality: Dounreay will not be FULLY decommissioned for over another 200 years, its only the next phase that is due completion in the next 25 years.

Oh and latest UK audit forecast is that it will be 27% higher than budgeteted costs.
5

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 26/08/2008 08:04:11
Yet more proof that nuclear power costs more than it produces. Yesterday's technology. Submarine turbines will one day power the Earth.
6

donald,

glasgow 26/08/2008 08:09:03
I'm so grateful
7

,

26/08/2008 09:06:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Vlad Tepes,

Snagov 26/08/2008 10:43:57
After 2 years chatter they decide to remove the most dangerous particles they can find, which have been on the loose for 30 years or so. They said this could never happen, denied it and are now doing a half hearted clean-up so that they can try to say nuclear is a clean alternative. I smell lies.
9

Neil,

Glasgow 26/08/2008 11:59:00
The fact is that Dounreay beach is considerably less radioactive than Aberdeen beach it is just that the latter is natural radioactivity. At least 90% of the cost of this "clean up" is not to do anything necessary but to placate the Luddite lobby, who will never be placated by being paid such Danegeld.
10

Class On Grass,

Radio Dunnet Head 26/08/2008 12:32:05

Good that a cleanup is underway, I would like to find a cancer map showing incidence and any clusters, and see if there is a raised incidence around nuclear plants.
I cant seem to find such a thing on the web, not even from the ONS. (Office for national statistics).
Come on Scotsman, some investigation is in order.

Aberdeen beach - yup, but does it have discrete hotspots like Dounreay?

11

Saoghal Beag,

26/08/2008 12:40:39
10 Dounreay beach is safer to sit on than aberdeen beach, unless you sit on a hot spot and only a eco-luddite would do that to upset neil and attempt to prove that nuclear stations are not the great safe panacea that he peddles.
12

Jay Kay,

26/08/2008 12:43:45
For god's sake tell this to the pro-nuclear idiots in westmonster who want to build even more of the damned things.

Forkin idiots.
13

Saoghal Beag,

26/08/2008 13:02:35
12 unfortunatley the idiot in chief has a brother who is marketing manager for EDF...
14

Montford's Jaicket,

Hanging around 26/08/2008 13:37:35
#10 - Try good old google - "cancer case location uk". The one below has several additional links from this page.
www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/product.asp?vlink=14059

Good hunting!
15

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 26/08/2008 14:10:03
Bring on the nukes, I want the lights to stay on.
Failing that, I am away to build a wee run of river hydro in the burn that runs past my house to keep my lights on.
The rest of you can do your own thing!
16

Montford's Jaicket,

Hanging around 26/08/2008 14:49:52
#10 re #14 - google as per top line. there is a link to the statistics.gov site and a couple of steps to a lot of stats on cancer. These are only broken down by health authority so you will be unable to home in on "hot spots" around Dounreay or any other reactor.
Having said that, keep looking - you never know what you may find.
17

Class On Grass,

Radio Dunnet Head 26/08/2008 15:15:52

Monford's Jaiket, Thanks, I'll keep looking, but as you say the ONS doesnt seem to provide the info.

11 Mr(s) Beag. I will avoid all hotspots then... Now where did I leave my Geiger counter... Right enough about the high ambient levels though - This will be a factor in abnormally high levels in the north also..
18

Saoghal Beag,

26/08/2008 16:25:47
15 nuclear is currently the most unreliable generation source in scotland.
19

Charles MN,

26/08/2008 18:41:14
#18 You're wrong. The nukes ,which are ~ 25 years old , currently have an unplanned capability loss factor of 38% ( compared with 19% last year). Windpower has an intrinsic unplanned capability loss factor of 70% before anything breaks down.

#17 If you are looking for nuclear hotspots try your local hospital.

"The average annual dose of radiation to someone living in Scotland is 2,400 microSieverts, 82% of which comes from natural sources. The main source of natural radiation exposure is radon, a radioactive gas that is emitted from tiny amounts of uranium naturally present in materials such as rocks, soils, bricks and concrete. Radon decays and emits short-lived products that can increase the risk of lung cancer. The action level for radon in the home is 200Bq/m 3, above which, measures should be taken to reduce concentrations. Other important natural sources of radiation are cosmic rays, terrestrial gamma rays and long-lived radionuclides that enter the body through food and drink.

The greatest artificial source of exposure to radiation comes from medical x-rays. Nuclear waste disposals and fall-out account for less than 0.3% of exposure. The Chernobyl reactor incident in 1986 caused average annual doses from fall-out to increase by about five times that year."


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/08/19084547/0
20

Saoghal Beag,

26/08/2008 19:03:34
19 strange then that the government is reporting that hunterston and torness combined last year only produced 13% of their potential. Significantly less than wind.

Hunterston on its own was obviously worse, but hey its 25 years old you'd expect it to be beset with problems, unlike a new nuclear plant. France has currently sent their construction teams back in to rectify many faults in their latest build (that's encouraging, wonder if they've found all the faults) knocking the construction back but not as far back as the new finnnish reactor.
21

Saoghal Beag,

26/08/2008 19:07:38
0.3% rise doesn't sound too bad, but that's a global average. i bet everyone in the town of chernoybl were out picnicing in the warmth of the day rather than worry about a measily 0.3 rise in background radiation.
22

Hugo of Garven,

26/08/2008 19:58:01
#9 Neil,Glasgow
If Dounreay beach is safer than Aberdeen's then why is that it is Dounreay which is designated a restricted zone?
23

Colin, Glasgow,

26/08/2008 19:59:32
I question whether this is money well spent.

SEPA has shown that these particles present no significant risk to the public:

http://www.sepa.org.uk/radioactivity/dpag/3rd_report.htm

The “hot spots” are approximately the size of a grain of sand. The chances of randomly coming into contact one are about 1 in 80 million per year for somebody using the beach regularly. Simple contact would not cause any health risk. Prolonged skin contact lasting many hours would be required to cause blistering; and even this would cause no lasting damage.

The only life-threatening scenario would be if one of the grains was ingested or inhaled, and the chances of this occurring are approximately 1 in a trillion per year for somebody digging on the beach regularly. After ingestion/inhalation the risk would be approximately the same as the annual dose we receive from background radiation (a very small risk of fatal cancer).

The most hazardous particles are around the Dounreay foreshore, but this is not accessible to the public and by the time the site is released for general use the particles (having a half-life of 30 years) will have decayed.


Spending £25 million to mitigate a mortality risk that is in the order of 1 in a quadrillion per year does not make a lot of sense.
24

Charles MN,

26/08/2008 20:15:38
#20 You should really check your facts before you spout such rubbish.

Torness 2007-2008 8TWh = 73% of capacity
Hunterston B 07-08 4TWh = 54% of capacity
On Shore wind 2007 4.5 TWh =27.5%
Off shore wind 2007 0.4TWh = 25.6%

While Hunterston is currently operating at 70% of capacity at least you know you will get that. You have no idea what wind will produce.
25

Colin, Glasgow,

26/08/2008 20:22:13
Hugo #22 “If Dounreay beach is safer than Aberdeen's then why is that it is Dounreay which is designated a restricted zone?”

Want the cynical answer?

The radioactive pollution on Aberdeen beach is caused by the operations of the oil industry, which is adored by the Scottish government because it brings jobs and tax revenue.

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html

The radioactive contamination on Dounreay beach is caused by the nuclear industry, which is abhorred for no particularly good reason.

The fact that the oil-industry radioactive contamination presents orders of magnitude greater risk is neither here nor there. Neither of them are significant health hazards.

Don’t get me started on the subject of air pollution from fossil fuel though. Now that _is_ a license to kill.
26

Saoghal Beag,

27/08/2008 08:46:40
charles BE figures, the detr reports that hunterston has a maximum capacity of 70%, true, however that is only true if it isn't having down time planned or otherwise. Last year when you account for the time it was off line it achived less than 14% of its rated capacity.

Regardless of that having excess capacity in nuclear will not stop the lights going out. It is very unresponsive and only capabale of supplying base load, maximum 20% of peak demand. If the lights go out it will happen on a surge demand and nuclear is incapable to respond, why we have hydro.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.