Sellafield's Future

The arrival in Dublin today of the Danish Minister for the Environment, Mr Svend Auken, is no routine visit to rub shoulders …

The arrival in Dublin today of the Danish Minister for the Environment, Mr Svend Auken, is no routine visit to rub shoulders with his Irish counterparts. Denmark has decided it has had enough of safety lapses at the BNFL reprocessing plant in Sellafield and, backed by other Nordic countries, is intent on bringing Britain to book. The recent findings of the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) on the operation of Sellafield and the falsification of quality checks on mixed oxide nuclear fuel (MOX) being sent to Japan and Germany were, it seems, the final straw. But Mr Auken's principal objection is to the impact of discharges from Sellafield on the fish Danes eat and the accumulation of radioactive material in the marine environment stretching from the Irish Sea, past the Scandinavian coastlines, all the way to the Arctic.

Of most interest from the Irish perspective, Mr Auken is planning to avail of the terms of a 1998 agreement on discharges of radioactive waste into the marine environment. It was agreed by signatory countries to the OSPAR convention on marine pollution, including Britain and the Republic, to cut radioactive discharges into the sea to all but zero by 2020. This should have signalled radical redirection or closure of Sellafield and La Hague - Europe's only reprocessing facilities. But already the timetable seems ominously behind schedule. Plans showing how reductions will be achieved are due by this year, but Britain seems to have become vague on its commitments so explicitly spelt out when the historic Sintra agreement was finalised in Portugal. Mr Auken believes, nonetheless, there is ample provision in the terms of agreement to force meaningful action by BNFL, or to ensure that its reprocessing operations cease.

The Government has consistently recited its objections to Sellafield but dithered over whether it would support a court case challenging its continued operation. Its policy could be described as soft, notwithstanding the odd formal letter of complaint to the British government and the earnest endeavours of the Minister of State, Mr Joe Jacob, who has responsibility for marking BNFL.

Recent events strongly indicate Sellafield's future has never been so uncertain. The NII reports revealed systemic flaws. Managers failed to act responsibly and permitted a culture to develop which allowed some workers to believe it was acceptable to falsify fuel quality checks and to monitor their own work. This went on for three years. It Sellafield was a routine manufacturing industry there might be acceptable explanations or excuses for failures in quality control and safety procedures. But when what is involved is one of the most hazardous forms of industry, with the possibility of catastrophe, carelessness and deceit in relation to safety is unacceptable. If the Government's anti-Sellafield policy is to mean anything, it should exploit the plant's vulnerability at every opportunity, and signal its new intent by rowing in with the Nordic alliance.