Covid19 spread shows up vulnerability at heart of
nuclear programmes, with resilience of critical national infrastructures
undermined
First
indications that the dreaded coronavirus had penetrated the very heart of the
UK nuclear sector came in on 15 March when Sellafield Ltd confirmed that a
worker at the vast nuclear waste management
complex- employing 13,000 workers- had tested positive for Covid19.
A Sellafield
Ltd spokesman said: We are in contact with Public Health England and are
following their advice to protect our employees and partners, while maintaining
our focus on the safety and security of the Sellafield site.
(Cumbria Crack 15th March 2020; https://www.cumbriacrack.com/2020/03/15/sellafield-worker-tests-positive-for-coronavirus/). The number of infected
workers subsequently rose.
Concerns were raised about the overall safety of Sellafield if the
plant did not have enough active workers to continue operating ( it has over
400 separate building dealing in various ways with dangerous
nuclear materials, some of which have to be very carefully actively
cooled to stop overheating and gas explosions) and was not closed to
passive state properly. Frankly, any
accident would make coronavirus look like a ‘vicar's tea party’, with the whole
of the north of England and south of Scotland uninhabitable for a century or
more!!
Sellafield
is terrifyingly unique! Closure of other critical national infrastructures,
such one or more power plants, nuclear or not, closure of part of
the national grid electricity or gas distribution system,
closure of a dockyard, would not result in ecological catastrophe, but
inconvenience, to greater or lesser degrees
Inappropriate
closure of Sellafield to passive maintenance estate due to an on-site chronic
outbreak of coronavirus would be an unmitigated disaster, qualitatively much
more dangerous than any other facility in the country being disabled by
the same coronavirus.
There
are some nightmarish possible consequences. A memorandum submitted by Dr Gordon Thompson,
the executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies
(based in Cambridge, near Boston, USA)
to the UK Parliament Defence Select Committee (on 3 January 2002) – following earlier publication on 18
December 2001 by the same committee on The
Threat from Terrorism - stressed how
any
radical failure in the cooling capacity of the high activity radioactive waste
tanks at Sellafield could lead to environmental catastrophe:
“over
a period of days, these tanks would boil dry, after which the solid residue in
the tanks would heat up and release volatile radio-isotypes—including
caesium-137—to the atmosphere. The eventual release of caesium-137 to the
atmosphere might exceed 50 per cent of the inventory in the tanks. The present
inventory (see Section 2, above) is about 8 million TBq (2,400 kilograms).
Thus, the release of caesium-137 to the atmosphere might exceed 4 million TBq
(1,200 kilograms)…. Radioactive material could be released from a
nuclear facility in two ways: (a) as an atmospheric release composed of small
particles and gases; or (b) as a liquid release. An atmospheric release would
create a plume that would travel downwind. Particles in the plume would be
deposited on the ground and other surfaces. A liquid release would contaminate
ground water or surface water. For example, a liquid release at Sellafield
could contaminate the Irish Sea.” (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/518/518ap02.htm)
The Sellafield
site
On 23 March, the
Sellafield management announced that site would be paused for 48 hours, to plan
changes to work patterns and welfare provisions. On the same day, it was
announced that the French equivalent to
Sellafield, the giant nuclear complex
(“Usine) of La Hague on the
Cotentin peninsular in Normandy, had begun its own phase down. (“Coronavirus : Orano la Hague met à l’arrêt ses
installations- Sur le site d'Orano la Hague, toutes les activités de
retraitement de combustibles nucléaires usés sont stoppées ce mardi 17 mars
2020. Les installations sont mises à l'arrêt » ; 17 Mar 2020 https://actu.fr/normandie/beaumont-hague_50041/coronavirus-orano-hague-met-larret-installations_32342507.html
La direction d’Orano la
Hague, face à l’épidémie de coronavirus, a décidé de mettre à l’arrêt ses
installations. (©Jean-Paul BARBIER)
(The nearby naval nuclear complex at Cherbourg had announced
on 16 March :it too was going into operational
cold storage.https://actu.fr/normandie/cherbourg-en-cotentin_50129/coronavirus-naval-group-lactivite-est-suspendue-dans-chantier-laubeuf_32317648.html)
Regulatory impact
I asked the UK nuclear regulator what proportion of ONR staff being
forced into simultaneous self-isolation would trigger a crisis that would not
allow nuclear safety and security regulatory oversight to continue effectively
across the UK? And, if this situation arose, what executive regulatory decision
would be required if all operating nuclear facilities could no longer be
simultaneously regulated to a legal standard?
ONR was also asked via its
independent advisory panel: What criteria would ONR use to
decide whether an infectious outbreak like coronavirus should cause a licensee
to shut down its operations (eg percentage of employees off sick, key managers
off sick; high incidence of infection in surrounding areas; inability to
undertake critical functions; and, what action would ONR require a site
operator to undertake to temporarily make a plant safe in the event that an
outbreak like coronavirus made it impossible to operate the plant to normal
standards?
ONR responded thus:
/_ONR Internal
Arrangements_/
/We have business continuity plans and incident management procedures in
place for a range of scenarios. We have recently tested these plans and
incident management arrangements and are confident that we would be able
to continue to operate essential services./
//
/_External Arrangements_/
/All civil nuclear sites have minimum staffing levels, and contingency
plans should they fall below these levels, to enable them to remain in
control of activities that could impact on nuclear safety under all
foreseeable circumstances throughout the life cycle of the facility.
This is enforced through nuclear site licence condition 36 (LC36)^made
under the Nuclear Installations Act. /
//
/An ONR Technical Assessment Guide (focused on staffing levels and task
organisation) sets out ONR’s expectations on appropriate numbers of
Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEPs). You can find it on
our website./
//
/In addition, licensees need minimum staffing levels to comply with
their on-site and off-site emergency plans. The on-site arrangements are
covered under nuclear site licence condition 11 (LC11) and are tested on
an annual basis, with the exception of some low hazard sites where
modular testing arrangements are in place. Again, an ONR Technical
Inspection Guide on LC11 gives their expectations, also on our website./
//
/Under the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003, nuclear site
security plans must describe the manner in which the premises are to be
policed and guarded, including the number of such personnel who will
normally be present and the contingency measures to be implemented
should this level of staffing not be achieved./
//
/Staff rotas at nuclear sites are resilient to keep generation running
in scenarios including pandemic or industrial action. If a generating
site needed to be shut down for any reason, it would be shut down
safely. In the case of a complex, non-generating site like Sellafield,
operations would be scaled back to a level necessary to sustain
essential safety operations. /
/In line with the arrangements set out above, our inspectors are in
contact with licensees, as appropriate, given the developing national
and international situation./
/We have business continuity plans and incident management procedures in
place for a range of scenarios. We have recently tested these plans and
incident management arrangements and are confident that we would be able
to continue to operate essential services./
//
/_External Arrangements_/
/All civil nuclear sites have minimum staffing levels, and contingency
plans should they fall below these levels, to enable them to remain in
control of activities that could impact on nuclear safety under all
foreseeable circumstances throughout the life cycle of the facility.
This is enforced through nuclear site licence condition 36 (LC36)^made
under the Nuclear Installations Act. /
//
/An ONR Technical Assessment Guide (focused on staffing levels and task
organisation) sets out ONR’s expectations on appropriate numbers of
Suitably Qualified and Experienced Persons (SQEPs). You can find it on
our website./
//
/In addition, licensees need minimum staffing levels to comply with
their on-site and off-site emergency plans. The on-site arrangements are
covered under nuclear site licence condition 11 (LC11) and are tested on
an annual basis, with the exception of some low hazard sites where
modular testing arrangements are in place. Again, an ONR Technical
Inspection Guide on LC11 gives their expectations, also on our website./
//
/Under the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003, nuclear site
security plans must describe the manner in which the premises are to be
policed and guarded, including the number of such personnel who will
normally be present and the contingency measures to be implemented
should this level of staffing not be achieved./
//
/Staff rotas at nuclear sites are resilient to keep generation running
in scenarios including pandemic or industrial action. If a generating
site needed to be shut down for any reason, it would be shut down
safely. In the case of a complex, non-generating site like Sellafield,
operations would be scaled back to a level necessary to sustain
essential safety operations. /
/In line with the arrangements set out above, our inspectors are in
contact with licensees, as appropriate, given the developing national
and international situation./
Then another
disturbing aspect of the threat from Covid 19 to safe nuclear operations arose,
at the vast nuclear site at Hinkley Point – it has a closed nuclear power plant
(NPP) ‘A’, an operational NPP ‘B’, and a new NPP ‘C’ under construction - on Somerset’s north coast, on
the Bristol Channel.
Local civil society group,
the Stop Hinkley (SH) campaign, loudly announced that it was horrorified that
the 4,000-strong workforce at the HPC construction site was set to continue
working during the Coronavirus Lockdown effecting the rest of the UK. SH
spokesperson Katy Attwater said:
“This is putting lives at risk right across Somerset and the whole of
the country. Why hasn’t the Prime Minister ordered them to stay at home – is he
just pandering to the nuclear lobby?”
HP owner, French–state EDF
Energy said it was taking “extra steps” to safeguard the health of
workers, planning body temperature checks on all workers entering the site, and
has banned handshakes and agreed to halve the number of people travelling on
each bus.
EDF announced on 24 March it was reducing the workforce
at Hinkley Point C by more than half in the coming days because of the
coronavirus outbreak. The reduction were aimed, EDF said, at allowing easier
social distancing in operational areas and sites such as canteens, adding
“Keeping this
capability intact is essential for a project of critical national importance
and an industry which plays a key role in helping the UK reach net zero
(greenhouse gas emissions).”
(“EDF reduces workforce at UK's
Hinkley Point C nuclear power project,” Reuters, 24 March 2020; https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-britain-nuclearpower/update-1-edf-reduces-workforce-at-uks-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-project-idUSL8N2BH711?rpc=401&
Meantime, EDF had effectively
closed down building work it controversial Flamanville nuclear plant under construction
near to the La Hague Radioactive waste processing plant., because the
fear of the spread of Covid19. Nuclear
Intelligence Week reported an EDF spokesperson as stating”
“As
of Monday, March 16 only the staff performing tasks essential for safety
and security are required to be present on the Flamanville site: operating
crews, site protection team, safety engineers and personnel in charge
of environmental monitoring, At
Flamanville 3 EPR essential activities continue [referring to activities
needed to keep the site from falling into disrepair.]"
On 26 March, the French nuclear safety
authority ( L’Autorité de sûreté
nucléaire, ASN) suspended
on-site safety inspections at French nuclear power plants due to the
coronavirus. They are being replaced with "inspections at a
distance", unless there is a major nuclear emergency. This means
teleconferences with operators and the examination of documents. EDF has
already suspended all "non-essential" maintenance, which ASN asked
them to self- define.
(“L’ASN
suspend ses inspections sur les sites nucléaires, Montel, 26 mars 2020; https://www.montelnews.com/fr/story/lasn-suspend-ses-inspections-sur-les-sites-nuclaires/1100659?fbclid=IwAR1ShxJjrIehsyyeGjRvlp6qb32YMyaBLz8TYW0V_NRrP6G0S12EmaqVoPU)
Meanwhile,
back across the water, despite what EDF
said, on 25 March, the Daily Mail newspaper
printed a photograph whose caption stated it was taken in the workers
canteen at Hinkley Point. Dinners are packed together, with absolutely no
spacing.
The
umbrella–group, Nuclear Free Local Authorities network (NFLA) stated with concern.
“We find it remarkable that construction is continuing given the social
distancing regulations which all other sectors of the economy are having to
abide by.
It is, we
would argue, virtually impossible to continue safe working for large
construction works given that workers would need to be in close proximity for
much of these works.”
SOCIAL DISTANCING: Workers
in the canteen at Hinkley Point
Next
day, this was the scene in the canteen at Hinkley Point C this morning. The
local on-line news series reported that EDF “has obviously taken measures to
try to ensure social distancing between workers, placing plastic bags over
every other seat to keep people apart from each other during the Coronavirus
crisis.”
However,
a plant insider questioned whether it is enough to keep the workers the
recommended two metres apart, saying: "They've done their best, but when
anybody moves, they're inevitably immediately within two metres of someone
else…It's a bit scary. Some people are a bit worried and are talking about
it."
A
HP spokesman said: "Construction at Hinkley Point C continues and the
project is taking extra steps to protect the health and wellbeing of everyone
on site. Hinkley Point C will continue working with contractors and trades
unions to review the situation as it develops."
(“Social distancing fears in
Hinkley Point C canteen despite EDF's best efforts,” This is the West
Country, 24 March 2020; www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/news/somerset_news/18330262.social-distancing-fears-hinkley-point-c-canteen-despite-edfs-best-efforts/)
The
chief nuclear inspector, Mark Foy, commented:
“Firstly,
let me assure you that we are in close contact with all our nuclear sites in
light of the Covid-19 pandemic to ensure we have full understanding of the
emerging situation, how it is impacting the sites and the additional safeguards
that are being introduced.
We
are aware of the situation at Hinkley Point C where the licensee is in the
process of implementing major reductions in the number of people on the
site. It is managing this in a staged and controlled manner, to ensure
the works are made safe before each of the numerous work faces is closed down.
In addition to the significant reduction in the
workforce, the licensee is also enhancing its coronavirus measures to ensure
that it appropriately manages the risks and limits the spread of the virus in
line with government advice. Measures include body
temperature checks; enhanced/deep cleaning of buses, canteens, door handles,
desks, eating areas, welfare facilities, toilets and other touch points; hand
sanitisers distributed across site.”
NFLA
remained sceptical observing”
“…social
distancing rules from the government are clear around the real risk of close
proximity, and how can EDF be confident that such rules can be
observed all the time over such a complex site? The UK has gone into
a new stage this week of a full lockdown to stop, if at all possible, the
spread of infection. With the best will in the world, having 2,000 people in
close proximity to each other raises the real risk of local infections
increasing.
The
other issue is that contractors will be using public transport routes locally
and perhaps regionally, putting members of the wider public at risk as well.”
Then, suddenly, as the apparent risks hotted-up, ONR
backed off from taking responsibility, with Mark Foy stating:
“The
specific measures that any site takes in relation to social distancing for its
staff are not within our regulatory vires [ie legal responsibilities] and have
been designated the responsibility of the local authority, under emergency
legislation.
“..The licensee has greatly reduced pressure in its
canteens, they have closed-off seats and increased spacing between tables; they
have also identified ‘canteen marshals’ to advise staff; they have increased
the number of buses and limited the available spaces on buses; social
distancing is in force at work faces, as well as in locker rooms, briefing
rooms and meeting rooms; more than 3000 test-kits have been ordered which will
arrive on site in 2 weeks’ time.”
He ended asserting:
“Please be assured that we continue to maintain close
regulatory oversight of all our sites to ensure they comply with legal
requirements in relation to nuclear safety, security and conventional health
and safety during any organisational changes as a result of coronavirus restrictions.”
(Pictures taken Wednesday March 25 at 6pm
But,
despite a decision by EDF to reduce its Hinkley C workforce, local residents still complained that while
they were in lockdown, HPC construction workers could ‘come and go as they wish’. “People are very
scared and concerned,” said Cllr Chris Morgan, chairman of Stogursey Parish
Council and the area’s councillor on Somerset West and Taunton Council. “What
is happening is a recipe for disaster.”
Cllr
Morgan added that, while he welcomed the reduction in the Hinkley workforce,
“you
have still got a very large group of people doing what everyone else has been
told not to do. …We have a large multiple occupation building (HMO) in the
middle of the village, another in Castle Street, one in Burton and many rented
rooms, all full of people going to work, coming back, using the shops, all
mixing together. “When you have a predominantly older age group - it is a recipe for disaster! Most of the
villages around Hinkley Point have quarantined themselves but when you have got
people constantly doing the complete opposite of that being asked of the people
who live here, it just doesn’t seem right. “This is a national emergency.”
Parish council vice-chairman Cllr Sue Goss
said that “Our main concern, particularly in Stogursey parish, is that we still
have contractors who quite rightly go home at the weekends, some to the Covid
19 hotspots of South Wales and the West Midlands, and then return to the middle
of our local community, totally untested, before they return to the site.
(West Somerset Free Press 27th March 2020;
www.wsfp.co.uk/article.cfm?id=123896&headline=Health%20fears%20over%20Hinkley%20workers§ionIs=news&searchyear=2020&cat=Community%20News Bridgwater Mercury 27th March 2020
www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/18340829.village-neighbouring-hinkley-c-labels-virus-measures-unacceptable/)
www.wsfp.co.uk/article.cfm?id=123896&headline=Health%20fears%20over%20Hinkley%20workers§ionIs=news&searchyear=2020&cat=Community%20News Bridgwater Mercury 27th March 2020
www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/18340829.village-neighbouring-hinkley-c-labels-virus-measures-unacceptable/)
The, early morning of
31 March, the UK nuclear regulator (ONR)
issued an astonishing statement on Covid19
and its responsibilities, following five days of solid lobbying by the local
and national anti-nuclear groups over the
continued construction at Hinkley C.
It must rank as one of
the most egregiously complacent and content-less statements ever made by a
regulator, packed with platitudes, but short on any supportive evidence
Here are some
extracts:
ONR is
“continuing to protect
society by securing safe nuclear operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“A limited number of
our inspectors can, as key workers, continue to travel to site as necessary to
conduct urgent and essential regulatory inspections.”
The COVID-19 pandemic
is a public health matter and, last week, the [UK] government introduced new
emergency legislation regarding the enforcement of ‘social distancing measures.’
ONR does not play a role in enforcing new social distancing measures on nuclear
licensed sites. Enforcement of the new legislation is designated to police
forces and local authorities.
We will continue to
regulate matters under the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and
associated regulations, and the Energy Act 2013, including ensuring that
licensees and duty holders are adequately resourced to continue to safely and
securely carry out their activities.”
All licensed sites are
required to determine minimum staffing levels necessary to ensure safe and
secure operations and contingency arrangements in the event that these levels
are not met.
This condition is
specifically designed to ensure that industry can adequately manage and control
activities that could impact on nuclear safety and security under all
foreseeable circumstances, including pandemics.
We are engaged on a
daily basis with licensees and duty holders to ensure that their activities are
appropriately resourced. Should we have
any concerns about staffing levels or welfare that could potentially impact
nuclear safety and security, we will immediately address these with licensees
and dutyholders as necessary.
In due course, we will
work with industry to re-plan activity for when operations return to normal.”
Then,
a new question was raised: what if ONR on-site inspectors themselves were in
danger of getting contaminated, and bringing the Covid19 infection
back to ONR HQ in Bootle, near Liverpool?
Other activities in
the UK nuclear sector
Coronavirus measures at UKAEA:
(“How working
arrangements at the UK Atomic Energy Authority are changing due to the
coronavirus;” UK Atomic Energy Authority 24 March 2020; https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-measures-at-ukaea)
In line with
current guidance, the UK Atomic Energy Authority suspended “all but essential
on-site operations” at Culham Science and Fusion energy centre, and asked all
staff not involved in that activity to work at home. UKAEA has remote access
systems allowing other work to continue.
The US
Scene
On 24 March Maria Korsnick, ceo of
the Nuclear Energy Institute, issued a
bland statement on the US nuclear industry’s pandemic preparednes plans and
preparations.
But much more important, was a hard-hitting critique
two days later of the policy by Washington DC –based Dr Ed Lyman, acting director, at the nuclear safety project
and Senior Scientist for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned
Scientists
Lyman opened suggesting that with
the world “facing overwhelming and immediate threats from the novel coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic, the risks of nuclear power are probably far from the thoughts
of most people.”
He pointed out that the nuclear
regulator (USNRC) does not generally oversee the health and safety of plant
workers unless it is related to radiation exposure, so it is largely up to the
plant owners themselves to implement protective measures against COVID-19 to
ensure they have a functioning workforce, Adding:
“Reports about potential
coronavirus cases among the workforce at Plant Vogtle
in Georgia and allegations of a lack of enforcement of social distancing protocols
there raise concerns about the adequacy of the industry’s response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.”
Stressing that “tens of millions of
Americans live within 50 miles of operating nuclear power plants “ he argued
that
A reactor accident or terrorist
attack could release a large amount of radioactive material into the
environment, potentially exposing many people to high levels of radiation.
But, compounding the impacts of such
a disaster with the social and economic disruptions caused by spread of the
virus, would , he stressed “further
strain an already fragile health care system and economy.”
Short-staffing nuclear plants
A key question the NRC may soon face
is how it should react if a nuclear plant is unable to maintain the required
numbers of licensed control room operators and security personnel per shift.
Dr Lyman gave the example:
“a single control room at a two-unit
plant must
be staffed with three operators and two senior
operators. Also, there must
be at least ten armed responders on
each shift to protect the plant from radiological sabotage attacks—and the
actual number most plants have committed to providing is likely higher. There
are also regulations governing work hours and fatigue management that were put
into place partly to address excessive overtime issues that arose after the
9/11 attacks. to meet any of these requirements, it generally must shut down
unless the NRC provides an exemption from the regulations or relief from
license commitments.”
NRC can allow reactors to operate while in violation of their legally
binding license commitments by granting a’ “notice of enforcement discretion.’
The radiological risk to public health and safety will generally increase when
the plant is operating outside of approved license limits, he highlighted..
The NRC assured me, he closed out
saying,
“..that its risk standards for
granting enforcement discretion have not changed and that if they deemed any
plant unsafe they could and would issue an order to shut it down.”
(“Nuclear Power Safety and the COVID-19 Pandemic,” UCS,
March
26, 2020: https://allthingsnuclear.org/elyman/nuclear-power-safety-and-the-covid-19-pandemic
Lyman is a neutral, but highly critical, scientist. A more overt anti m
nuclear group is Beyond Nuclear, based just outside of Washington DC. BN’s
international editor, Linda Pentz Gunter, recently wrote a trenchant attack on the US nuclear
industry strategy to exploit the Coronavirus crisis, under the headline “ While
industry looks for handouts, NRC gives nod to reduced safety oversight”
She opened
trenchantly, arguing that “ it was no surprise really, when the first to line
up with outstretched palms as the US Congress debated and formulated its now
passed $2 trillion coronavirus-prompted emergency relief bill, were nuclear
corporations.
“The sinking
nuclear power industry spotted an economic lifeline and couldn’t wait to make a
grab for it. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the nuclear
power industry, rushed off a letter to congressional leaders asking for a 30%
tax credit and waivers for existing regulatory fees.”
she continued,
and pointed out that :
“During a recent NRC and industry
telephone meeting on the topic, Beyond Nuclear’s director of reactor oversight,
Paul Gunter, asked whether the NRC had supplied its reactor site personnel with
sufficient protective equipment, masks, and respirators, as per the Centers for
Disease Control guidelines. ‘They blew it off, Gunter said. ‘They claimed it
was a matter for OSHA.’ Industry representatives on the call remained silent on
the matter.”
The industry is
“ dictating to the regulator what the agenda will be.” So it’sbusiness as
usual, Gunter concluded
(“Out of
control?,” Beyond Nuclear International; March 29, 2020; https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/03/29/out-of-control/)
International reactions
An almost diametrically opposite nuclear narrative has been told by the
World Nuclear Association, the global lobbyists for the industry.
WNA’s Swedish Director Genera, Agneta Rising, writing on the WNA’s own
web site World Nuclear News, argued:
“Nuclear power has responded to the call to action in the public health
crisis that each and every one of us is facing"The global COVID-19
coronavirus pandemic is prompting dramatic actions from governments, placing
great restrictions on people and on business in order to save potentially
millions of lives."
Agneta Rising, World Nuclear Association director general
(Image: WNA)
She said she wanted to
“pay particular tribute to the utilities, their workers and their suppliers who
are keeping their reactors running during this public health crisis. Their work
reminds us just how crucial nuclear energy is as a source of 24/7 electricity
supply.”
Echoing the US NEI,
she asserted that the nuclear industry,
“with its strong
safety culture and well-established emergency preparedness protocols, has been
able to respond swiftly to the disruptions created by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Companies have implemented business continuity plans and prepared for the
impacts of the response to the virus. Plant operators are applying various
measures to protect the health of their workers: enhanced hygiene procedures,
staggered shifts and lunch breaks to enable social distancing are all being
used to minimise the spread of the virus.”
And she ended, asserting
“the nuclear energy industry has come together to help with the global effort
to fight - and ultimately overcome - this disease."
(”Message: Nuclear power in the fight against
COVID-19,” 27 March 2020; www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Message-Nuclear-power-in-the-fight-against-COVID-1?feed=feed)
Endnote
Uranium
industry impacted too
The
rapid spread of the coronavirus is weighing heavily on markets and battered
equities, the Investment News Network reports. It added:
“The uranium industry, which
has been depressed for the bulk of the last four years, has also been impacted,
with the chaos in the world adding another headwind to the space.”
As more closures and
stricter regulations limiting social interaction are introduced around the
world, INN produced a uranium-focused COVID-19 report.
Uranium
and COVID-19: Producers
Kazatomprom,
the
world’s largest private uranium company - accounting for 41 percent of world
mine supply in 2018- issued a statement on 16 March regarding the spread of the
coronavirus, that outlined the company’s heightened safety measures and notes
that “its projects will remain open due to their remote locations.”
Energy Fuels,
the
US-based company issued a brief statement on March 18 ahead of its 2019 full-year
conference call. Canceling travel and conference attendance are some of the
measures the company has implemented to protect employees. Management also
plans to hold regular webcasts or conference calls in the weeks and months
ahead to keep investors apprised of developments.
Denison
Mines, a Canada-focused
operation “has temporarily suspended its Wheeler River - in Saskatchewan’s
Athabasca Basin - environmental
assessment (EA) to reduce the spread of the virus.”
Uranium
Energy, in a
March 20 statement announced plans to have staff work remotely; maintenance
protocols at its Hobson processing plant and Palangana in-situ recovery mine
remain unchanged.
Cameco,
Canada’s giant uranium miner, said that
in
response to the Canadian government’s increasing restrictions due to the spread
of COVID-19, Cameco ( the world’s leading publicly traded uranium producer,” has
announced it would “ halt production at its Cigar Lake
mine in Northern Saskatchewan.”
Energy
Resources of Australia, owner of the huge Ranger mine, “remains open at this time and
the company is confident it will meet its yearly guidance.”
“Uranium and COVID-19: Who’s Reacting
and How?” March
25, 2020
In Pandemic 1918,
published in 2018 by Michael O’Mara Books, its author Catharine Arnold draws some parallels across the century since
the catastrophic influenza contagion that killed an extraordinary 100 million victims,
pointing out that the threat of a pandemic flu is as severe as that of a terrorist attack, and added :
According to Professor Oxford, the impact of a flu pandemic
in Great Britain would be the equivalent of blowing up a nuclear power
station.”
ONR, extraordinarily, seem determined to combine the two!