Sellafield sent nuclear waste to landfill
Published at 22:38, Thursday, 07 February 2013
Sellafield has admitted accidentally sending bags of radioactive waste to be dumped at a landfill site at Lillyhall instead of to the low-level waste repository at Drigg, a court has heard.
The company sent four bags from Sellafield to Lillyhall in April 2010. All the bags, which contained waste such as gloves and mops, were retrieved and returned to Sellafield for correct disposal.
Seven charges were brought by the Environment Agency (EA) and the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), after an investigation into
“multiple failures” involving the incorrect disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
Sellafield admitted the charges, although Eleanor Sanderson, for the company, disputed that the error was out of complacency and negligence and claimed that staff work “tirelessly” to maintain safety on site.
The case was heard at West Cumbria Courthouse yesterday (Thursday) and was adjourned for sentencing at Carlisle Crown Court on March 8.
Barry Berlin, for the Health & Safety Executive (HSA) and the Environment Agency, told the court an error was caused by a new monitor which had
passed the bags as general waste, making them exempt from strict disposal controls. The mistake only came to light when a training exercise was carried out at Sellafield.
An investigation was immediately launched and it was reported that five bags containing radioactive waste had passed through undetected. One remained at Sellafield and the other four had already been taken to Lillyhall.
Further investigations showed that one of the four bags at Lillyhall had split, contaminating a further five bags. Tests by the Environment Agency (EA) had since established there was no contamination at the landfill site.
Dr Rob Allott, nuclear regulator team leader for the Environment Agency, said: “It’s highly likely that some groups of people would have been exposed to radioactivity. The waste is inherently hazardous, but with a low risk factor.”
He said the risk to people and wildlife would have been very low.
The court heard there were further “multiples failures” regarding transportation regulations. Sellafield said a number of improvements have since been made.
Mr Berlin said: “There is no doubt that these are welcome changes. But because we are dealing with radioactivity we submit these should have been checked beforehand.”
He added: “Complacency and negligence was apparent from the beginning from the procurement of the monitors. There was a considerable
potential for harm.”
Eleanor Sanderson, for Sellafield, said the company was “disappointed” by the incident. She said two monitors were set up and Sellafield
assumed that the first machine had been configured to show how radioactive waste was, if at all.
She said numerous checks were carried out, but Sellafield accepted there was an “insufficient testing of bags at higher activities”. She said the company admitted that the root cause was failings in “ordering and testing of the machine”. However, she disputed that the
error was out of complacency and negligence and claimed staff work “tirelessly” to maintain safety on site.
Since the incident, changes have been made to ensure numerous checks are carried out on waste before it is disposed of. “This was not a reckless act, it is a regrettable error, ”she added.
Magistrates said: “We are taking into account that the risk was low, but we feel that this is a risk that should not have been there. The checks that have been put in place now should have been there in the first place.”
Ian Parker, nuclear regulations manager for the EA, said: “Our overriding aim in regulating the nuclear industry is to protect people and the environment from the release of radioactive wastes into the environment.
“We have carried out a thorough investigation in partnership with the ONR and have already required Sellafield Ltd to take action to ensure
this does not happen again.”
Ian Barlow from the ONR, added: “We require the nuclear industry to control its hazards and ensure it has effective procedures in place
for transporting and disposing of all forms of waste.Where necessary, we will use enforcement action to protect people and society from the
hazards of the nuclear industry.”
Published by http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk
Have your say
Working "tirelessy" isnt enough when dealing with dangerous material like this, washing machines work tirelessly but dont always get the stains out and we cannot afford any mistakes with this stuff
Make your comment
- Students’ progress puts them in top two per cent in UK
- CBC £14m pensions black hole
- Wind turbine blade shears off
- What's On Guide: December 12 to 18
- Valley Nursery School in December 1992
- Sleeping Beauty
- Copeland council offers support but no cash for harbour repairs
- Windfarm plans turned down (4 comments)
- New-look museum makes plea for more volunteers
- They nose it makes sense!