It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nuclear Event in United Kingdom ... Monday, 19 September, 2011

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:33 AM
Nuclear Event in United Kingdom on Monday, 19 September, 2011 at 18:12 UTC.

see: ROES ...

Magnox has informed UK regulators that water was found leaking
from a cracked flow meter in the active effluent treatment plant at the
Sizewell A nuclear power plant earlier this month,
a document obtained by Platts shows.

Magnox, which is owned by EnergySolutions, is the management
and operations contractor responsible for 10 nuclear sites in the UK,
including Sizewell A in Suffolk.

Tim Watkins, site director of Sizewell A,
last week wrote to members of the Sizewell Stakeholder Group --
set up to manage the flow of information about the nuclear site --
to inform them of the incident.

Sizewell A stopped generating electricity in 2006 after 40 years of operations
and is in the process of defuelling. Immediately to the north of Sizewell A is
Britain's newest nuclear power station, Sizewell B, which is operated by British Energy.

In his letter, Watkins said that, "While carrying out routine inspections in the early
hours of Saturday, September 3, an operative noted unexpected plant indications
and upon investigation, discovered water escaping from a cracked flow meter in
the site's active effluent treatment plant (AETP)."

at first i thought " effluent"...?

but then read...

"The meter forms part of a section of the system which returns treated water
to the used fuel storage pond and as such the activity in the liquid was very low.

The plant was shut down before the loss initiated our early warning alarms," he said.

"Our physical safety defenses performed exactly as expected.

All the treated water except a small amount which remained on the floor in the AETP
was captured by the system and there was no impact on personnel or the environment," he said.

ok, he also adds...

A "far more significant event" in the AETP, in January 2007, led to a complete
review and overhaul of the plant's design and safety systems, he said.

"I want to reassure you that this event does not provide any indication that
improvements we made then are ineffective now," he said.

Among the enhancements was the installation of early warning alarm and
plant protection systems, which were not required in this case because
the fall in pond levels was not enough to trigger any of the alarms, he said.

agnox's investigations show that the pond level reduced by 1.4 cm,
in a total depth of 6.75 m, which equates to a loss of 7 cubic meters of treated water.

In total, about 13.3 cu m of treated water was captured by the secondary containment,
over a period of four and a half hours, he said.

so i wonder where the other 7 cubic metres of this ( " treated" ) stuff ended up...?

for news on earlier "accident..
for another angle on same problem...(2009)


UK Nuclear Accident Cover-Up At Sizewell A, Suffolk

A report obtained through the freedom of information act has revealed
a near catastrophic nuclear disaster was narrowly avoided two years ago.

A burst pipe at the Sizewell A nuclear power station led to a huge leak
from the pond used to cool thousands of nuclear fuel rods.

here we go again?


edit on 20/9/2011 by shaneR because: typo

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:38 AM
There are two potential answers here.

This stuff has been leaking for a while but it was "hushed". Now that people are comfortable with a nuclear plant melting down we can admit our leaks.

Some other force (earthquake, flooding or the operator replaces a bad part and takes down California).

Can anyone think of another reason all these "tragedies" keep getting reported?

Or is it just to scare us?

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:54 AM
reply to post by litterbaux

hi litterbaux,

agree that it has probably been going on for a while,
and last incident shows that they are happy to keep quiet about this stuff, normally...

it seems to me, that there is an "ideal" level of panic...
not too much, but just enough to keep us "anxious"...




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:42 AM
I'm in Suffolk...always found it scary having the two Sizewells so close by.

And never heard of either incident til now, so thanks.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:00 AM
IMO it's the fact that loopholes exist with the law where nuclear regulatory agencies that are supposed to be overseeing that these operations run smoothly and that the nuclear power plants are properly maintained that causes these types of "events" in the capitalist world (USA especially).

I know that in the US there isn't much stopping a former nuke plant worker or CEO from quitting and going to work for a lobbying agency or nuclear regulatory agencies & working as an asset for nuclear power plants by receiving financial incentives in exchange for complacency in incompetent safety measures at nuke sites etc, Which is a huge part of the equation in these scenarios.

Not sure how the UK is different in that aspect, but something tells me that crack probably didn't just suddenly appear & start leaking.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:03 AM
now this is REAL news.

not the dis-information and distraction news the media reports.

good find.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:10 AM
See reading about this kind of # freaks me out.

I live probably less than 100 miles away from a nuke plant that has been confirmed to be leaking and is still leaking into the environment & is supposedly "no threat to public health' (yea friggin right) & not only that, but I heard around 70% of nuclear plants are leaking in the US and they want to build MORE?!?!

Fukashima, three mile island, chernobyl, none of these events are enough to convince those out to make a dollar that Nuclear energy is NOT "green energy" in any shape or form.

IMHO I think it's going to take a simultaneous multiple reactor meltdown in the western world for people to realize how dangerous nuclear energy is.

In fact I just read a few days ago about a new reactor site for a weapons grade plutonium recycling plant (making MOX fuel for civilian nuke plants) is opening up on top of the "south's most dangerous fault" in south carolina.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:19 AM
Nuke plants are still sthe safest way to make power I know nobody believes that but it is so .look it up

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by shaneR

I don't understand. Is there a problem, or is this just a potential problem that was fortunately caught before anything disasterous could occur?

I don't know if you'd consider it a Nuclear Event... I mean, that's like saying a burst water main is a tsunami??

I may have missed something... sometimes , as bizarre as that may appear, it happens... crazy!

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:31 AM

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Nuke plants are still sthe safest way to make power I know nobody believes that but it is so .look it up

Yea assuming it's repaired and well maintained which almost all aren't.

Most nuke plants in the US are not supposed to be operating anymore, they were supposed to only be operating for 30 or so years and most are operating beyond that age, have been poorly maintained, and are operating at full capacity.

Also I wouldn't exactly call creating tons upon tons of highly radioactive waste with a decay period of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years "safe", especially when you consider how many of these nuke plants sit atop fault lines.

What are we going to do with all the waste when we run out of space to put our plutonium (let's not forget all the other radioisotopes) barrels & MOX fuel isn't in as high a demand?
edit on 20-9-2011 by OpioidFreud because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2011 by OpioidFreud because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by Mouldilocks

hi Mouldilocks, and thanks for that,

SORRY to be the bearer of bad news....

i'd be scared too, living anywhere near a NUKE facility...


posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by OpioidFreud

hi OpioidFreud, and agree,

whos watching the watchers...???


posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by diddy1234

hi diddy1234,
and thanks...

just trying to share the ATS spirit...

"knowledge is power"...

since Christchurch E/Q, and fukushima i have been keeping a close eye on the "monitors"...
and this popped up...

i have friends in U.K. ( like everyone here)...


posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by mikellmikell

hi mikellmikell...

will your "stats" still stand up in 50yrs???

i dont think so...

eg: radiation poisoning from the start of the process to the end ( ?, 000 year "half-life)...

we are only just learning about energy...and radiation poisoning...



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by Ha`la`tha

hi Ha`la`tha,

i cut and pasted the headline from RSOE EDIS... ( see above for actual report...)

this is the home page...

the facility is leaking "treated" water, (which is still radioactive...)
and has been, unreported, for at least a month...

it was only just

and it is ongoing...

( they are "missing" 7 cubic metres of the stuff )....

edit on 20/9/2011 by shaneR because: typo

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by shaneR
reply to post by Mouldilocks

SORRY to be the bearer of bad news....

Hey, don't be sorry! I won't shoot the messenger.

I'm just pleased the information came my way

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by mikellmikell

Yeah and fluoride is pefectly safe,the cheques in the post.........etc etc.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:58 PM
Although I don't know the nature of this incident I do know enough about the systems in place as I was a member of the NE design team for Sizewell 'B' working on Radwaste and then Reactor Control Systems. I'd never say never but please bear in mind that absolutely everything on a nuclear site has to be treated as waste; nothing can be removed. That means newspapers, lunchboxes, overalls etc. All of it is processed. As this is treated water it may be secondary cooling system water which is NOT radioactive but must be treated as such; this is the stuff that makes up 90% of the fluid discharged into the sea. I'll check it out and get back to you.

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:17 AM
nuke plant are the safest energy source, really??

maybe cleanest and least emissions, but safest, gosh, look at chernobyl, fukishima, and whatever's the next and the next and the next until utimately humans & other fauna are onlu rarely born without severe birth defects.

top topics


log in