By IPS Correspondents
LONDON, Mar 15 1999 (IPS)

British environmentalists are worried about nuclear contamination on the seabed around Dounreay in Scotland, – the site of Britain’s experimental fast breeder reactor programme which is now closed.

The environmental group, Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping (SAND) says that hundreds of “hotspots” have been found on the foreshore below the site, and three on the nearby Sandside public beach.

Additionally, 120 nuclear particles have been found by divers surveying sandbanks off Dounreay which has led to a ban on fishing within 2 kms of Dounreay. The latest finds are in addition to another 180 particles found earlier in the years stretching back to 1984.

Authorities have been cautious in approaching the problem.

John Simpson, the environmental programme manager at the plant, says only that “the significance of these finds…is being considered” but he conceded “they indicate that a sizable population of particles is present in the offshore sediments.”

The Dounreay site was opened in 1955 for the development of fast reactors. The three reactors built on the site have all been shut down and activity at Dounreay today comprises the decommissioning of these reactors and the reprocessing of nuclear waste – including shipments of spent fuel from foreign countries.

But the worries over contamination won’t go away and the UK Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA) is under pressure from local people at Caithness, the biggest urban area near Dounreay, following reports of increased cases of leukaemia.

UKAEA’s main role now is to decommission the sites reactors and deal with several major environmental legacies from past operations. These include an intermediate level waste (ILW) shaft licensed as a waste disposal facility in 1957 which suffered a chemical explosion in 1977 and a wet ILW storage facility.

In March 1998 the UK government accepted the UKAEA’s recommendation that radioactive waste in the Shaft and Wet Silo should be retrieved for treatment and storage.

According to Dounreay’s Director Roy Nelson the particles being found in the seabed and foreshore were unlikely to have come from the shaft although he admits there is no way of relating the particles to a particular incident.

Wastes used to be discharged into the sea fairly near to shore but in the early 1990s a new liquid effluent pipeline was built which discharges effluent to the Atlantic Ocean. Nelson says the particles discovered recently may have come from the old pipeline and its diffusion chamber.

SAND spokeswomen Lorraine Mann, however, says her group believes thousands of particles could be lying on the seabed and is critical of the way Dounreay is dealing with the problem.

“It is an absolute disgrace that no more than five per cent of the potentially affected area of seabed has been surveyed to date,” Mann says. “Dounreay’s operators have known of this problem since 1984.”

Dr Bernard Wilkins, author of a recent report by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), says some particles may have been carried well outside the exclusion zone where commercial fishing is banned.

Recently two new hotspots were found on the foreshore below Dounreay, making nearly 200 since the early 1980s, and researchers reported that sand and seaweed which might have been contaminated was regularly taken from beach areas until about a year ago for agricultural use or for gardening or building purposes.

SAND’s Lorraine Mann says Dounreay “cannot be trusted to give accurate and truthful information” and the plant management has admitted it may be necessary to dig up some of the low-level waste pits to recover ILW dumped in error.

Last year, a safety assessment by the British government’s Health and Safety Executive identified many “chronic” deficiencies at the site and detailed 142 recommendations to improve safety . The UK Atomic Energy Agency accepted the need for change and .

Meanwhile, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) has promised a new report on any possible link between Dounreay’s hotspots and increased childhood leukaemia.

After previous reports on leukaemia “clusters”, a stream of new previously undisclosed information has been published, causing COMARE to complain that information had been withheld from its members.

Excerpt: