I WAS surprised to read the uncritical pro-nuclear tone of John Burns’s analysis of the politics of Sellafield (Sellafield: the real fallout, Focus, last week). There are several unresolved problems with Sellafield, including the fact, as the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority revealed in its draft national strategy, that 20m cubic metres of radioactively contaminated soil — which will require remediation treatment — already exists at Sellafield alone. Some of this radio-toxic soil “is deep underground, resulting largely from leakages”.

This figure equates to about 10 times the total arising from decommissioning of all the other UK licensed sites added together. The purpose of “slagging off Sellafield”, as Burns puts it, is not to be a “crowd pleaser”, but to hold to account the operators, British Nuclear Group, whose environmental record is demonstrably dangerous and needs to be tightened up.

Radioactivity levels in the Irish Sea are in decline, he reports. But what is important is not just the aggregated radiological pollution, but where the nuclear contamination is reaching. The most recent annual report of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) states: “Analysis of seaweed samples around Ireland have shown that while the plutonium levels have decreased since the 1980s, on the west coast the percentage contribution of Sellafield-sourced plutonium has increased.”

Another RPII report, released last December, points out worryingly: “The remobilisation from sediments of historic discharges is now an important source of caesium-137, particularly for the seawater of the western Irish Sea.”

If I were an Irish citizen, I would not be as sanguine as Burns over Sellafield’s continued ecological threat.

Dr David Lowry
Environmental policy and research consultant
Stoneleigh, Surrey

RPII RETORT: Your article does not accurately represent the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland’s (RPII) position on Sellafield. The RPII has long been concerned about the threat posed to Ireland by nuclear installations in the UK, and in particular by Sellafield. Following a visit there in 2004, we published a report raising a number of concerns relating to plant operation, radioactive discharges and the potential for accidental releases.

There is a considerable volume of radioactive material stored in a number of buildings across the site. This includes high-level liquid waste in highly active storage tanks, spent nuclear fuel in storage awaiting reprocessing, and legacy wastes from previous operations. There is a risk, albeit small, that some of this material could be dispersed into the environment as a result of an accident or terrorist incident. The RPII is aware that there are programmes in place to ensure that this material is made safer. However, we are concerned about slippages on the current timetable and wish to see these programmes completed as soon as possible.

The RPII is also concerned with the potential for increases in the rate of discharge of certain radionuclides into the Irish Sea due to increased throughput of spent nuclear fuels being reprocessed, the management of legacy wastes and the eventual decommissioning of the Sellafield site itself. The recent reduction in discharges of technetium-99 is, however, a positive development.

In recent years there has been an improved level of cooperation between the regulators in Ireland and the UK and more information about Sellafield is available to Ireland than was previously the case. The RPII is aware of the dangers that Sellafield poses to Ireland, but we are continuing to monitor the activities of Sellafield and are actively engaging with the relevant authorities in order to reduce the risk to the Irish people.

Ann McGarry
Chief Executive, Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland

Times Recommends

• Experts baffled by vanishing sea lions
• CIA caught in a dirty and secretive war
• Double life of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab