UK's most hazardous building still leaking radioactive water, MPs warn
In a report published on Wednesday, the Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) criticised the speed of decommissioning work at the former nuclear power plant, citing examples of 'failure, cost overruns and continuing safety concerns'.
Although the committee noted there were 'signs of improvement', PAC chairman Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said Sellafield continued to present 'intolerable risks'.
He said: 'As with the fight against climate change, the sheer scale of the hundred-year timeframe of the decommissioning project makes it hard to grasp the immediacy of safety hazards and cost overruns that delays can have.
'Every day at Sellafield is a race against time to complete works before buildings reach the end of their life. Our report contains too many signs that this is a race that Sellafield risks losing.'
The PAC said those risks were underlined by the Magnox Swarf Storage Silo (MSSS), which the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) described to the committee as 'the most hazardous building in the UK'.
The MSSS has been leaking radioactive water into the ground since 2018, releasing enough water to fill an Olympic swimming pool every three years, and is likely to continue leaking until the oldest section of the building has been emptied in the 2050s, around a decade later than previously expected.
Pointing to the fact that Sellafield Ltd had missed most of its annual targets for retrieving waste from buildings, including the MSSS, the committee warned: 'The consequence of this underperformance is that the buildings are likely to remain extremely hazardous for longer.'
The NDA has acknowledged that the leak is its 'single biggest environmental issue', and a spokeswoman said managing it and retrieving waste from the MSSS was 'our highest priority'.
She added: 'As the report says, the leak in the Magnox Swarf Storage Silo is contained and does not pose a risk to the public. Regulators accept that the current plan to tackle the leak is the most effective one.'
Sir Geoffrey said: 'It is of vital importance that the Government grasp the daily urgency of the work taking place at Sellafield, and shed any sense of a far-off date of completion for which no-one currently living is responsible.
'Sellafield's risks and challenges are those of the present day.
'There are some early indications of some improvement in Sellafield's delivery, which our report notes. Government must do far more to hold all involved immediately accountable to ensure these do not represent a false dawn, and to better safeguard both the public purse and the public itself.'
Sellafield ceased generating electricity in 2003 and, in addition to work cleaning up the site, now processes and stores nuclear waste from power plants around the UK.
In the longer term, the Government plans to create an underground geological disposal facility (GDF) to store nuclear waste for the thousands of years it will take to become safe.
But the committee said delays in creating the GDF, which is now not expected to be done until the late 2050s, meant more costs for Sellafield as it required more storage facilities.
NDA chief executive David Peattie said he welcomed the PAC's scrutiny and would consider how best to address its recommendations.
He said: 'We take the findings seriously and the safety of the site and the wellbeing of our people will always be our highest priorities.
'As the committee has noted, Sellafield is the most complex and challenging nuclear site in the UK. We are pleased they recognise improvements in delivering major projects and that we are safely retrieving waste from all four highest hazard facilities.
'With the support of our employees, their representatives, community and stakeholders, we remain committed to driving forward improved performance and continuing to deliver our nationally important mission safely, securely and sustainably.'
As well as criticising delays in clean-up operations and calling for an overhaul of how the site functions, the PAC expressed concern that there was a 'sub-optimal culture' at Sellafield.
The committee pointed to the 16 non-disclosure agreements signed by Sellafield Ltd in the last 16 years, and called on the NDA to publish information about the prevalence and perception of bullying in its annual report.
The NDA spokeswoman said: 'We're committed to an open and respectful culture and we've taken decisive action to enable this, including strengthening our whistleblowing policy.
'Evidence shows the improvements are working and the report acknowledges the improvement in staff survey results over recent years, but we are never complacent and will continue to strive to ensure the NDA group is a place where everyone feels respected and empowered to raise issues, knowing that they will be acted upon appropriately.
'As the report notes, it is one of the conditions of Sellafield's nuclear site licence to have a robust process for reporting safety issues and the independent nuclear regulator has given the site a green rating of compliance.'
A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: 'We expect the highest standards of safety and security as former nuclear sites are dismantled, and the regulator is clear that public safety is not compromised at Sellafield.
'We continue to support the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in its oversight of Sellafield, while driving value for money.
'This is underpinned by monthly performance reviews and increased responsibility for overseeing major project performance, enabling more direct scrutiny and intervention.
'We have zero tolerance of bullying, harassment and offensive behaviour in the workplace – we expect Sellafield and the NDA to operate on this basis, investigate allegations and take robust action when needed.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Bluetongue rules 'risk devastating farmers' along the border
The Welsh Government have been warned that Bluetongue rules 'risk devastating farmers and livestock markets right the way along the border. MP for Brecon, Radnorshire and Cwm Tawe David Chadwick and Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Jane Dodds have demanded urgent action to support farmers in Powys and across the Welsh marches. New rules set to come into force on July 1 will see sheep unable to cross the Welsh border unless it has had a bluetongue test, even if it has been vaccinated, which can cost as much as £70 per animal. The Welsh Government has relaxed rules on cattle to allow vaccinated animals to enter, however sheep will not be subject to the change despite there being over 8 million sheep being farmed in Wales in 2024. Much of the trade taking place across the England-Wales border and local farmer James Gittins warned that "in the worst-case scenario, we are going to see the numbers of lambs produced in Wales drop by 10 to 20 per cent, from which it may never recover." Livestock markets such as Builth, Prestige and Welshpool are also set to be massively hit by the rules. In Westminster on Thursday, Mr Chadwick questioned the UK Government EFRA Minister about how it plans to prevent a de facto veterinary hard border between England and Wales and protect cross-border farms from economic harm. Chadwick warned that the cost of testing 'is a devastating burden our local farmers cannot afford to take on at a time they are already under such significant financial pressure'. While acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, the Minister declined to commit to additional support, citing devolved powers. 'These sudden and costly changes risk devastating farmers and livestock markets right the way along the border,' said Mr Chadwick. 'Cross-border movement is essential to how agriculture works in this region, it's not optional. If nothing changes, this will do serious damage to rural livelihoods and the local economy. 'We need urgent coordination between the Welsh and UK Governments to ease the burden and protect our farms.' In the Senedd, Jane Dodds raised the impact the policy is having on farmers' mental health, and urged the Welsh Government to work more closely together with a focus on vaccination over an unworkable testing and licensing scheme. Both representatives are calling for a joined-up, four-nation response to bluetongue, including surge funding for testing and vaccination. 'I've spoken with farmers, vets, and local markets and the message is clear, the current plan is unworkable,' said Ms Dodds. 'Testing is costly, slow, and does nothing to support already stressed farm communities. 'Vaccination must be at the heart of our response. We need a united approach between both Cardiff and London that puts farmers' wellbeing and practical realities first.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer accidentally admits his first year has been a failure
It is the sort of thing a backbencher who is trying to be loyal would say. Which is damning, and particularly so from the prime minister himself, because a core part of his job is communicating the government's 'story'. He was asked in Canada on Wednesday what his biggest mistake had been in his first year in government. 'We haven't always told our story as well as we should,' he said. Most politicians would have bristled at the obvious trap laid by Beth Rigby of Sky News, but Keir Starmer is a surprisingly low-ego politician. No other British prime minister would have bent down to pick up the trade deal papers that Donald Trump dropped. Most other prime ministers would have ignored Rigby's invitation to criticise themselves, especially as the second half of a two-part question, but Starmer came back to it willingly after answering the first part (what are you most proud of? 'Three million extra appointments in the NHS'). He is not self-important, which I admire about him, but he is ruthless and confident. Confident enough not to notice or care that the photographers are recording him scrabbling at the president's feet, and confident enough to give a serious answer to an obviously silly question. Unfortunately for him, it was a bad answer. Communication is not an optional add-on to democratic politics; it is the essence of it. Poor communication is usually an excuse not an explanation. It is the code to be used when a government becomes unpopular but people do not want to imply that the leader is the problem. Poor communications and bad advisers get the blame. It was ever thus: when parliament criticised Charles I's advisers; when Margaret Thatcher was told to get rid of Alan Walters, her economic adviser. Charles I was urged to get his message across better to MPs by denouncing popery; Thatcher was urged to sell the poll tax better by calling it the community charge. In both cases, it wasn't the advisers or the communications that were the problem. So it is with Starmer. MPs grumble about Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister's chief of staff. They blame him for the 'right-wing' policies that they don't like. They have all read Get In, the book about how Labour won the election by Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund, which portrays McSweeney as the mastermind and strategic genius behind a campaign for which Starmer is often the passive figurehead. This is often developed, by MPs who 'didn't come into politics to cut support for the disabled', into a fairytale in which Starmer, a proper socialist who shares Ed Miliband's politics (like them), has been taken prisoner by his Blairite chief of staff. If that is an attempt to avoid direct criticism of their leader, it fails, because it makes him look weak and dishonest. But it is also wrong. In the end, the leader always takes responsibility for decisions. Nor is Starmer simply McSweeney's puppet. A telling report in the Financial Times on Wednesday revealed that the plan to treat Nigel Farage even more publicly as the real leader of the opposition came from Starmer himself, and not McSweeney: it was the prime minister's idea to travel to St Helens to deliver a speech as a direct response to Farage's pitch for Labour votes. Farage is the main threat to Labour at the next election, but it may be that McSweeney has doubts about the prime minister himself saying so in public. The 'poor communications' line is just as bad – and it is a defence that Starmer deploys himself. What does he mean when he says 'we' could have 'explained our decisions in the way that might in retrospect have been better'? Could he have said to pensioners on modest incomes, 'We're going to take away your winter fuel payment, but don't worry, next year we will pretend that the economy is getting better and give it back to you'? The reason his government's decisions have not been explained better is that they were bad decisions. In retrospect, as he put it, he should have stopped Rachel Reeves cutting the winter fuel payment. Looking back, he shouldn't have promised to ' smash the gangs ' with no idea how to do it. Looking further back, he should have put someone with his full authority in charge of preparing for government. These are not examples of failing to tell the government's story 'as well as we should': they reveal a government with no story to tell, or even, quite often, with the wrong story to tell. Starmer has shown that he can learn, and he seems to have no fear of U-turning from the wrong policy to the right one. So maybe he can recover from the false start of his first year – but it will be achieved by making better decisions, not by 'telling a better story'.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
‘Tax is theft': it's time the Tories remembered that eternal truth
Suppose I were to force my way into your home and help myself to half your possessions. I hope everyone can see that my behaviour would be wrong. Does it become right when I get to call myself 'the government', and to label my confiscation 'tax'? Even in a democracy, I surely need a good reason to violate the rules of morality by which everyone else is expected to live. That, in a nutshell, is the case for libertarianism. Supporters of limited government want the state to be bound, to the greatest possible extent, by the same norms as the rest of us. Government intervention should be a last rather than a first resort. In what has become the global libertarian motto: 'Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff.' Critics on both sides scoff at the idea that there is a moral basis to libertarianism. Leftists think it is a cover for greed and selfishness. Rightists, or at least Trumpians and National Conservatives, dismiss it as the creed of rootless cosmopolitans. But all it really is is the application to official bodies of the ethical precepts we learn at nursery school. Treat other people considerately, don't take things that aren't yours, tell the truth, try not to get into fights. There was a time when mothers would tell their children to 'be civil': an apt word, recalling that decency, politeness and respect are attributes of citizenship, conditions for a happy and harmonious society. Those mums were channelling David Hume, who wrote of 'the three fundamental laws of nature, that of the stability of possession, of its transference by consent, and of the performance of promises'. Hume in turn was drawing on centuries of classical, Biblical, Islamic and Eastern philosophy. In all these traditions, alongside the Golden Rule, he found its less ambitious but more feasible twin, the Silver Rule. The Golden Rule tells us to treat others as we would like to be treated. The trouble is that, for most of us, this is rarely achievable. I might walk past a beautiful house and wish it were mine, but that doesn't make me post my own keys through its letterbox. For those of us who are not saints, the Silver Rule, being negative in its conception, has the advantage of practicability. Confucius phrased it as 'Do not impose on others what you yourself do not want'. Quite. Don't hurt people, don't take their stuff. There is a Talmudic story of an impatient gentile who asks a rabbi to teach him the entirety of the Torah while standing on one leg. The rabbi sends him away crossly, so the gentile makes the same demand of another rabbi, who happens to be the famously wise Hillel. Hillel tells him: 'That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.' If you feel I am labouring the point, it is because I sense the tide running against us. The world is in a bossy, censorious, authoritarian mood, and has been since the lockdowns. The individualist philosophy that stretches back through Hume via John Locke to St Paul and Lao Tzu is losing ground, despite its monumental contributions to peace and prosperity. The Great Realignment, predicted two decades ago by Dr Steve Davies of the Institute of Economic Affairs, has happened. The old divide, which pitted classical liberals and capitalists against interventionists and socialists, has been replaced by a new one, one that divides patriots from globalists or (from the opposite perspective) bigots from believers in universal rights. 'There is no more Left and Right,' said Marine Le Pen at the last French presidential election. 'The real cleavage is between patriots and globalists.' Her opponent, Emmanuel Macron, did not dispute her framing: 'The new political split is between those who are afraid of globalisation and those who see globalisation as an opportunity.' This is uncomfortable for those of us who support national independence and cultural traditionalism as well as free contract and personal autonomy, a combination that did not seem strange to Margaret Thatcher or to Enoch Powell or, come to that, to Edmund Burke, the grandfather of Anglophone conservatism. For a long time, our opponents came overwhelmingly from the Left. They believed that patriotism was a form of false consciousness, a way to distract oppressed groups. Proletarians in different countries supposedly had more in common with each other than with the capitalists who happened to share their nationalities. Workers of the world should unite. Now, though, the critics tend to be professed anti-socialists, often idealistic and patriotic young men, convinced that classical liberalism places international interests over local loyalties, and that its exponents are soulless corporatists who feel at home only in Brussels or Davos. 'You know what a globalist is, right?' Donald Trump asked a rally in 2018. 'You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much.' I spend a lot of time with classical liberals, and I have honestly never come across anyone who matches that caricature. We believe in free trade and open competition, not because we have elevated it into a dogma that stands above the national interest, but because it is the national interest. Countries with limited governments do better than countries with bloated governments. They are less corrupt, wealthier, happier and usually more equal. That our creed enriches the globe too is a happy bonus. I can't think of a better way to define our national interest than the net interest of the people in our nation. And that is best advanced if our government is circumscribed and limited. Every intervention that politicians make – every regulation, every tariff, every subsidy – privileges a particular group, usually one with political connections, over the general population. I'd call that the opposite of the national interest. 'One of the criticisms that I get from the Right is that I am insufficiently committed to the capital-M Market,' says J D Vance, arguing that markets should be a tool, not an objective in themselves. But who are these people who elevate the capital-M Market? Who are these demented ideologues who stalk Vance's imagination? You won't find them among the think-tankers of Tufton Street, who support markets precisely because they see them as a tool, a means to the end of greater national prosperity. The real ideologues are those who believe that governments, so inept at building cars, running airlines or installing telephones, suddenly become wise and disinterested when it comes to deciding which companies to subsidise or to shield from competition. Britain, of all countries, should understand that competition and free trade are a supreme expression of patriotism. It was these ideas that elevated us above the run of nations, turning us into the wealthiest country on Earth – a position we held until others copied our formula, thereby enriching themselves and incidentally enriching us, since prosperous neighbours are customers before they are competitors. Is the electorate, mired in post-lockdown stagnation, ready to hear such a message? Will voters prefer candidates who tell the truth about our public finances, and who argue for cuts, over those who claim that we can keep spending as long as we are compassionate enough? Not yet, perhaps. Hence Reform UK's shift away from classical liberalism and towards the nationalisation of selected industries and the maintenance of generous benefits. Yet we can see the storm gathering overhead. When the money runs out, so do people's illusions. There may yet be a reward for a grown-up party, a party prepared to stand apart from the high-spending, welfarist consensus. Even if that position does not attract 50 per cent support plus one, it will attract a lot more than 18 per cent support, which is where the Conservatives are currently polling. In any case, it is the right thing to do – right both economically and morally. Perhaps, in time, it will come to be right politically, too.
