Di McDonald

Hunting Brae for AWE plc pleaded guilty to three charges:

1. between 1/4/97 and 28/1/99, contrary to the Radioactive Substances Act (RSA)1993 Hunting Brae discharged tritium to the Aldermaston stream instead of by the authorised route through the Pangbourne Pipeline (PP) to the River Thames;
2. between 1/4/97 and 12/1/99 they failed to report the discharge to the Environment Agency
3. on 26/2/98 they were found to have deposited an Application for renewed authorisation of their discharges on 25/2/99 at The Environment Agency (EA) Office, Kingsmeadow House in Reading in which they made a false statement and failed to disclose the discharge to the stream.

RSA Section 3 states that relevant limited discharges are to be released only through authorised means, in this case the PP or through the trade waste system to the Silchester Sewage Works. These are the only two routes permitted. RSA Section 16 states that if AWE believe they are not complying with these regulations, they must inform the Chief Inspector or the Minister.

In an interview in February 1988, Mr Haynes and his senior officer Dr. John Crofts, the Assurance Director of Hunting Brae, admitted to "recklessly making a false statement".

The reason for the unlawful discharge is that the Pipeline would not have coped with the volume of tritiated GROUNDWATER which had built up under the North Ponds concrete tank complex designed to contain contaminated SURFACE water. There was concern that the groundwater was threatening the integrity of the ponds. What AWE should have done was to consult the EA to discuss other means of discharge.

After AWE were charged with a similar offence when plutonium was washed over the neighbouring Blue Circle Cement land, the North Ponds facility was built in 1997 to take surface water up to 25 Becquerels a litre Bq/l. (Background level is considered to be 5-20Bg/l) This surface water is then permitted to be released into the Aldermaston stream so long as it is below 100Bq/l. GROUNDWATER is never allowed to be released into the stream. In 1993, when groundwater was found to contain 300 - 400 Bq/l, it was sent down the PP.

There are two constructed groundwater gathering points known as Wet Well 1 and Wet Well 2. It does not contain natural (that is from rainfall) radiation, but the 70Bq/l level of tritium from the site. When in 1997 Mr Saville who worked at the site asked his superiors if this water could be released to the stream, he was told Yes. A minute of a meeting in AWE records at the time says that all of this discharge went to the PP.

In 1998, when AWE asked if they could MIX surface and groundwater to dilute the latter and release the total into the stream, the EA reply was No. So AWE stored the groundwater to check until it reached less than 100Bq/l and then mixed it with surface water to dilute it further and released it into the stream anyway. AWE records show that it even ignored their own guidelines as on 43 of 73 days the release exceeded 100Bq/l.

By July 1998 there was a major disposal going on and AWE knew that it was unlawful. The high concentrations of tritium continued to mix with surface water from all sources and so was undetectable throughout Berkshire.

The Agency accepted that as far as they know, the risk to public health is negligible, but brought the charge because 70% of the tritium discharges was unlawful. Had the EA been informed they WOULD have given authorisation, but they would have asked the NII on site to find the source and remove it.

The current AWE Application on discharges did not mention this 2 year illegal discharge to the stream and they did not apply for this authorisation for the future. In fact they asked for authorisation to discharge a one-off large volume of 'historic arisings' to the Thames via the PP.

On 8/12/98 the EA wrote to AWE asking them to explain the relationship between tritium radiation to the PP with the groundwater under the North Ponds. AWE's reply of 4/1/99 did not include reference to groundwater.

In January 1999 at an EA/AWE meeting disclosure took place, and AWE were informed that they were not entitled to take the decision to discharge to the stream, the Minister has to decide. The EA then served an enforcement notice. However, the discharge is still going on since there is no other solution.

Under Section 32 of the RSA charges 1 & 2 could receive a fine of £20,000 each and 3 of £5,000. HBrae's plea in mitigation persuaded the Magistrates to fine them only £17,000 in total.

Di McDonald
Nuclear Information Service (NIS)
30 Westwood Road, Southampton
SO17 1DN
Tel/Fax: +44 - (0)23-80554434
e-mail: nis@ gn.apc.org (from 01/01/00)