The report on Sellafield by the British Nuclear Installations Inspectorate contains a catalogue of deceit, incompetence and irresponsibility. But no calls have been made for the dismissal of senior management members. Five low-level employees have been sacked and there are signs that the all-too-familiar public relations offensive is being launched.
Since its foundation shortly after the second World War the safety record of the nuclear installation in Cumbria has been questionable. The reactions over the years by British Nuclear Fuel Limited (BNFL) to a series of incidents have been geared more to image than substance. The most devious move was to change the plant's name from Windscale to Sellafield, hoping to fool the general public.
Now Sellafield's name is worse than Windscale's ever was. BNFL has been forced to make a series of truly frightening admissions. There has been deliberate falsification of quality controls and supervisors failed to detect these discrepancies. Procedures for control and supervision have been inadequate. Training of some staff has been minimal or non-existent.
While the report does not relate to discharges into the Irish Sea the picture it paints of how Sellafield is run is deeply disturbing. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate judged that "systematic management failure" allowed records for reprocessed plutonium destined for Japan to be falsified. It identified poor design of the plant, tedium on the part of workers and ease of manipulation of computer systems, as the main weaknesses.
Despite this the report says the fuel subjected to false reporting since 1996 is safe. The Japanese are quite correctly having none of this. Last September Japan, despite the extreme care it takes in its installations, suffered the worst nuclear accident in its history at the Tokaimura plant just 70 miles north of Tokyo. The main concern now for the Japanese nuclear industry is how to get rid of the reprocessed material it has been receiving from Sellafield.
The Tokaimura incident has shown that serious events can occur even at plants noted for their efficiency and discipline. Yesterday's damning report shows that Sellafield falls far short of that category. The statement in the Dail yesterday by Mr Joe Jacob, Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, was surprisingly low-key in the light of the report's seriousness.
Sellafield is a case on its own. It is one of such importance for future generations in this country that it should remain unconnected to other problems in the relationships between these two islands. The matter should be raised at the highest level and in the strongest terms. The familiar response of spin-doctoring is less acceptable than ever.