|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: Britain
British Nuclear Fuels accused of deliberately falsifying safety
checks
By Steve James
21 March 2000
Use
this version to print
New revelations show a continuing cover-up of falsified British
Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) safety records. Press reports have queried
BNFL's claim that the fabrication of safety checks on its controversial
plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel pellets was the work of a relatively
isolated and unsupervised group of workers at its Sellafield plant.
Last summer, BNFL conceded that staff in the company's experimental
MOX production plant had routinely copied computer spreadsheets
to avoid a tedious manual verification of the sizes of MOX pellets.
The tests were supposed to be carried out on a small proportion
of the pellets. Instead, results from previous tests were simply
cut and pasted into the new result sheets.
The scandal, exposed by the Independent newspaper, raises
serious implications about the safety of the MOX fuel, which BNFL
eventually admitted had already been installed in German and Swiss
reactors and was then en-route to Japan. Several workers at the
plant were sacked, and a report by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
(NII) criticised the lack of "a high quality safety management
system across the [Sellafield] site". The company's chief
executive was forced to stand down. Subsequently Germany, Switzerland
and Japan banned MOX fuel pending satisfactory safety reports.
However, later reports in the Independent indicate that
BNFL deliberately changed its initial measurement procedures to
cover up the fact that 13mm-long MOX pellets were emerging from
casting shaped like "flower pots"with one end
wider than the other.
On March 7, the Independent cited sources within BNFL
who said the company had changed the points at which it took laser
measurements of the pellets to a central 4mm band, rather than
verifying along their entire length. This meant that variations
over the remaining 9mm of the pellets could go undetected. BNFL
confirmed the alterations the next day to the NII, who admitted
that BNFL had previously "kept them in the dark" about
the changes.
The company attempted to justify this in a press statement,
saying that although pellets emerge from casting as "flowerpot"
shaped, they are then ground to the correct size and shape. They
claimed the readings were moved to near the middle to avoid mistaken
readings due to "chamfering" at the edges of the pellets.
This explanation is flimsy, as chamfering generally involves rounding
off the edges, rather than altering 70 percent of its surface
area.
The accurate sizing of the MOX pellets is crucial to enable
the reactor fuel to be used safely. Incorrectly sized pellets
can either vibrate within the fuel rods into which they are inserted,
or even rupture the cladding on the rods themselves. Inside a
nuclear reactor, such unpredictable yet avoidable variations could
be highly dangerous. Concerns over the pellets have forced their
removal from Swiss and German reactorsa process that required
the reactors themselves to be temporarily shut down, at great
expense.
What relationship exists between the falsified manual measurements
and the change in laser reading method is not yet clear. However,
taken together, they ensured that no reliable readings of the
MOX pellets were taken. Also, having identified inaccuracies in
the MOX pellets, BNFL management decided to cover this up rather
than go to the expense of rectifying it.
Nor is the alarm about MOX pellets unique. The NII recently
seized four batches of uranium fuel from BNFL's Springfields site,
near Preston, saying they were unsafe for use in nuclear reactors.
The fuel was due to be sold to British Energy, the privatised
operation that runs most of the remainder of the UK's nuclear
power stations. Had the fuel assemblies been loaded, cracks in
the welding could have allowed radioactive material to leak into
a plant's cooling system.
The deepening crisis at BNFL has broader ramifications. How
could such crude deceptions as those involving the MOX pellets
be maintained for three years without being uncovered by the NII?
Either the NII is incompetent, under-resourced, too closely tied
to BNFL and the other power generators, or all three.
The House of Commons Trade and Industry committee recently
questioned NII head Lawrence Hill about safety at the Dounreay
nuclear installation. He admitted that in the past there had been
concerns that the NII was too close to the UK Atomic Energy Authoritywhich
runs Dounreay. The committee also noted that the NII was under
pressure because of the series of safety alarms at Dounreay and
other British Energy plants, as well as the Sellafield complex.
The committee noted that they "were concerned that the NII
might find the demands of monitoring the extensive work at Dounreay
distracting them from their other inspection duties at Dounreay
and other sites".
Hill noted the ongoing difficulties of recruiting NII officers.
At present the NII were "20 or 30" short of their required
complement. The committee noted that Dounreay had only three NII
inspectors at the isolated site in the north of Scotland, which
employs 1,200 workers. Like Sellafield, it has been in use for
decades for reprocessing, power generation and bomb making tasks.
In 1998 contractors at the site accidentally cut a power cable
to a fuel cycle plant, depriving it of all power despite supposed
back-up systems. The accident happened a week after the plant
took delivery of a "special fuel consignment" of unidentified
contents from Georgia. No extra NII staff were available to conduct
an investigation into incidents such as this. As a result, routine
inspection schedules consistently fell behind. The committee noted,
We are concerned at the potential lapse in systematic and
thorough inspection, given the problems which have built up in
the past."
None of this has diverted the Labour government from its intention
of raising £1.5 billion through selling off 49 percent of
BNFL. Trampling over all safety concerns, UK Energy Minister Helen
Liddell informed the House of Commons that it would only approve
the BNFL sale if it appeared to be commercially viablethat
is if costs could be further reduced and productivity increased.
The government also announced that a delegation of state and
BNFL officials would travel to Japan in April to convince the
government and nuclear power operators there to lift the ban on
MOX fuel. Japan had imposed the ban after the first falsifications
began to emerge. It was also anxious to divert attention from
the dangerous safety standards in its own nuclear industry, brought
to light by the accident at Tokaimura, where two untrained nuclear
workers died after triggering a nuclear reaction.
MOX deliveries to Japan are a central component of the planned
BNFL privatisation, as they make up more than half the existing
contracts for the fuel. Re-processing forms a further 25 percent
of the company's business. Without MOXessentially a means
to recycle plutonium extracted from used reactor fuel rodsBNFL
would be saddled with a huge stockpile of plutonium and several
unusable reprocessing facilities. The loss of the MOX business
would make BNFL unsaleable.
BNFL take their Japanese contracts so seriously that they pay
the UK Foreign Office £500,000 annually to maintain a BNFL
agent at the British Embassy in Tokyoin addition to the
company's own office in the capital. The present incumbent Tom
McGlauchlan, an ex-head of BNFL communications, enjoys full diplomatic
status as Counsellor (Atomic Energy.)
Installing company operatives inside British embassies and
government departments was inaugurated under the previous Tory
government, but Labour has just continued the practice. According
to the Observer newspaper, British Aerospace has eight
staff in the Ministry of Defence. Tarmac, Kvaerner, Ove Arup,
Bovis and Christiani & Nielsen (all construction and engineering
companies) occupy key posts in the Home Office; and British petroleum
has its own people in the US and Middle East British Embassies.
Other corporations including those in tobacco, accounting, computing,
entertainment and the media have people inside the appropriate
departments.
But more than diplomatic influence peddling may be required
to resurrect the BNFL privatisation. The nuclear fuel reprocessing
and waste storage market is about to become much more competitive.
Last week Minatom, the Russian nuclear agency, announced it had
finalised plans to store nuclear waste at new and existing facilities
in Siberia and the southern Urals. Minatom intends to take up
to 16,000 tonnes of waste annually, creating the largest nuclear
waste storage areas in the world. According to the Norwegian-based
environmental group Bellona, who monitor Russian nuclear facilities,
Minatom has successfully persuaded six federal ministries to support
the plan, which could offer up to $7.5 billion for the Russian
government. Only the Duma (parliament) needs to be persuaded to
amend the law preventing the import of radioactive material for
the plan to become a reality.
Minatom are targeting nuclear power generators who are looking
for cheaper reprocessing or storage, such as new operators in
South East Asia, old plants in Eastern Europe and those presently
sending their waste to Sellafield or the La Hague facility in
France.
See Also:
Safety breaches disrupt privatisation
of British Nuclear Fuels
[8 March 2000]
US admits radiation exposure
killed nuclear weapons workers
[2 February 2000]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |