0:00:03 > 0:00:05Tonight on Panorama -
0:00:05 > 0:00:08Serious safety concerns at Britain's most hazardous
0:00:08 > 0:00:12nuclear facility revealed by the people who were in charge.
0:00:12 > 0:00:15It's a race against the clock. It's a ticking clock.
0:00:15 > 0:00:18Someday, that clock's going to run out and there'll be a problem.
0:00:18 > 0:00:22We'll show how years of neglect have left parts of Sellafield
0:00:22 > 0:00:24rundown and vulnerable.
0:00:25 > 0:00:27It was just not up to standard.
0:00:27 > 0:00:30It was like... It was a different world to me.
0:00:31 > 0:00:34A nuclear site where there aren't
0:00:34 > 0:00:37always enough workers to meet minimum safety levels...
0:00:37 > 0:00:39It defies belief, actually,
0:00:39 > 0:00:42that anything could be working at below safe staffing levels.
0:00:42 > 0:00:46..where radioactive plutonium and uranium are stored in
0:00:46 > 0:00:49degrading plastic bottles...
0:00:49 > 0:00:52This stuff should have been kept in a very, very safe place,
0:00:52 > 0:00:54because it was very dangerous.
0:00:54 > 0:00:58The organisation is now focusing on putting right some
0:00:58 > 0:01:01underinvestments of the past.
0:01:01 > 0:01:05..and where insiders fear a serious accident.
0:01:05 > 0:01:08If there's a fire there, it could generate
0:01:08 > 0:01:11a plume of radiological waste that will go across Western Europe.
0:01:28 > 0:01:30Sellafield is officially
0:01:30 > 0:01:34Britain's most hazardous nuclear site.
0:01:34 > 0:01:38Almost all of our nuclear waste comes here and stays here.
0:01:40 > 0:01:43Some of the material will be dangerous for hundreds of
0:01:43 > 0:01:46thousands of years.
0:01:46 > 0:01:50You'd expect day to day safety to be beyond reproach.
0:01:50 > 0:01:52You'd be wrong.
0:01:54 > 0:01:57I arrived thinking there would be a level of excellence, a level
0:01:57 > 0:02:02of engineering competence far exceeding anything I'd seen before.
0:02:02 > 0:02:05But it became fairly evident that all those things were not there.
0:02:09 > 0:02:11This man helped run some of Sellafield's
0:02:11 > 0:02:14most important nuclear facilities.
0:02:15 > 0:02:17Now he's turned whistleblower.
0:02:20 > 0:02:24Were you ever worried about what you saw? Every day. Why?
0:02:24 > 0:02:27Ultimately, I think something will happen there.
0:02:27 > 0:02:29There will be an omission or somebody will die.
0:02:35 > 0:02:40We've also seen hundreds of documents from 2012 to
0:02:40 > 0:02:45earlier this year that showed the reality of life inside Sellafield.
0:02:47 > 0:02:51In this programme, we will show you safety problem after safety
0:02:51 > 0:02:53problem here at Sellafield.
0:02:53 > 0:02:57Now, each is shocking in its own right, but taken together,
0:02:57 > 0:03:00they paint a frightening picture of the way this place is run.
0:03:06 > 0:03:08Sellafield is not a power station.
0:03:08 > 0:03:12It stores and re-processors nuclear waste.
0:03:12 > 0:03:16A lot of what happens here is very complicated.
0:03:16 > 0:03:19But some of the problems we've found are pretty basic.
0:03:22 > 0:03:24Take staffing levels.
0:03:24 > 0:03:28Many of the plants on the site need a minimum number of workers on
0:03:28 > 0:03:30shift just to keep them safe.
0:03:31 > 0:03:36But we've discovered that parts of Sellafield can't even manage that.
0:03:38 > 0:03:41How dangerous is below minimum safety?
0:03:41 > 0:03:43If you had an incident,
0:03:43 > 0:03:45you would not be able to react to it accordingly.
0:03:45 > 0:03:48So if something went wrong, you couldn't deal with it? Yeah.
0:03:48 > 0:03:52So on those days, it's just luck that something didn't go wrong.
0:03:52 > 0:03:54Correct.
0:03:54 > 0:03:57Now, minimum safe manning levels can
0:03:57 > 0:03:59apply to teams as well as whole plants.
0:03:59 > 0:04:03They are a long way below normal staffing levels.
0:04:05 > 0:04:10If a plant has say 60 workers, the minimum might be just six.
0:04:10 > 0:04:16Our leaked documents from 2012 and 2013 show minimum levels
0:04:16 > 0:04:19were routinely breached.
0:04:19 > 0:04:21One month, it happened 19 times.
0:04:23 > 0:04:26It is incredible.
0:04:26 > 0:04:27It defies belief, actually,
0:04:27 > 0:04:31that anything could be working at below safe staffing levels.
0:04:31 > 0:04:33I think that falls squarely with management,
0:04:33 > 0:04:36because how could that be allowed to happen?
0:04:36 > 0:04:37There is no excuse.
0:04:37 > 0:04:41The leaked documents say any deviation from the safe
0:04:41 > 0:04:45minimum manning levels is not acceptable.
0:04:45 > 0:04:48Sellafield says the situation has improved.
0:04:48 > 0:04:50But minimum safety levels are still
0:04:50 > 0:04:53being breached on average once a week.
0:04:53 > 0:04:56What happens, then? If you haven't got enough people, what do you do?
0:04:56 > 0:04:58I mean, you make alternative arrangements.
0:04:58 > 0:05:01So the things that have to be done get done and facilities are
0:05:01 > 0:05:04shut down if in fact we are not able to operate them in the way
0:05:04 > 0:05:07that we want to.
0:05:07 > 0:05:09What do you think about the fact
0:05:09 > 0:05:11that it's at a level that's dangerous?
0:05:11 > 0:05:13It's not at a level that's dangerous.
0:05:13 > 0:05:16Below minimum standards is dangerous, isn't it? No, it is not.
0:05:16 > 0:05:19Why is it listed as below minimum standards, then? It's below minimum.
0:05:19 > 0:05:22Well, you have a standard and report on it,
0:05:22 > 0:05:26but the important thing is the plant managers are able to take
0:05:26 > 0:05:30other steps in order to maintain safe operations at all times.
0:05:33 > 0:05:37Our whistleblower was concerned about another very basic
0:05:37 > 0:05:42safety failing. Sellafield has thousands of sensors and alarms.
0:05:42 > 0:05:44He says when he was there,
0:05:44 > 0:05:50staff frequently reset alarms without investigating the cause.
0:05:52 > 0:05:54What are these alarms drawing attention to?
0:05:54 > 0:05:58It could be a door has been opened, a fire door, fairly benign,
0:05:58 > 0:06:01right up to getting a leakage of effluent.
0:06:01 > 0:06:03But which alarm is important?
0:06:03 > 0:06:06You kind of lose sense of which are the important ones and which
0:06:06 > 0:06:08are the not-so-important ones.
0:06:08 > 0:06:10So they get reset.
0:06:10 > 0:06:12Just reset? Yeah.
0:06:12 > 0:06:14ALARM
0:06:14 > 0:06:18And we've seen a report that shows alarms were being ignored at
0:06:18 > 0:06:21several of Sellafield's nuclear facilities.
0:06:21 > 0:06:25Two plants had an unacceptable rate of alarms,
0:06:25 > 0:06:28more than 1,000 going off every day.
0:06:30 > 0:06:34Sellafield says the report was about software-based alarms,
0:06:34 > 0:06:38rather than the hardwired alarms that are important for safety.
0:06:39 > 0:06:42And the government body responsible for Sellafield says there
0:06:42 > 0:06:44isn't a problem.
0:06:44 > 0:06:47Our whistleblower says that because there are so many alarms,
0:06:47 > 0:06:51that they are just reset almost immediately. No.
0:06:51 > 0:06:53There is not a problem with alarms being ignored.
0:06:53 > 0:06:55How can you be so sure?
0:06:55 > 0:06:57Because we keep a constant surveillance on what is
0:06:57 > 0:07:00happening on alarms across the piece. We carry out investigations.
0:07:00 > 0:07:02Sellafield carries out investigations,
0:07:02 > 0:07:04the regulator carries out investigations.
0:07:04 > 0:07:06There are examples where the number of alarms that people are
0:07:06 > 0:07:08responding to is large. I think that was his point.
0:07:08 > 0:07:11Those alarms are promptly responded to, is my point.
0:07:16 > 0:07:20We've also discovered that liquid containing radioactive
0:07:20 > 0:07:24plutonium and uranium is being stored in thousands of
0:07:24 > 0:07:27plastic bottles in a laboratory fume cupboard.
0:07:29 > 0:07:33The bottles were only designed for temporary storage and
0:07:33 > 0:07:34some were degrading.
0:07:36 > 0:07:41Sellafield has been working for years to remove them.
0:07:41 > 0:07:45But right now, on the site, there are more than 2,000 plastic
0:07:45 > 0:07:48bottles containing plutonium and uranium.
0:07:51 > 0:07:56There was a period a number of years ago in one of the facilities
0:07:56 > 0:07:59where some waste materials were being stored broadly in the
0:07:59 > 0:08:01way you described.
0:08:01 > 0:08:05We've been working to get that material into proper storage.
0:08:05 > 0:08:08This stuff should have been kept in a very, very safe place,
0:08:08 > 0:08:10because it was very dangerous, and it was placed in
0:08:10 > 0:08:13a plastic container which was degrading in a cupboard.
0:08:13 > 0:08:16What does that tell us about the way this place is run?
0:08:16 > 0:08:22It says that the organisation is now focusing on putting right
0:08:22 > 0:08:26some underinvestments of the past in order to support the hazard
0:08:26 > 0:08:30reduction mission that the site has. And so that's what we're doing.
0:08:31 > 0:08:35Sellafield later told us that any plutonium and uranium samples
0:08:35 > 0:08:40are kept securely, and that to imply that such material is
0:08:40 > 0:08:43inappropriately managed is simply not true.
0:08:49 > 0:08:54Many of Sellafield's problems date back decades.
0:08:54 > 0:08:58In 2008, the government tried to sort them out.
0:08:58 > 0:09:01It awarded the contract to run Sellafield to an American-led
0:09:01 > 0:09:04consortium, Nuclear Management Partners, or NMP.
0:09:08 > 0:09:12Now, many of the problems we're showing were happening while
0:09:12 > 0:09:13NNP was in charge.
0:09:16 > 0:09:18But for the first time,
0:09:18 > 0:09:22some of the Americans who managed the site have agreed to speak.
0:09:22 > 0:09:24They say they had
0:09:24 > 0:09:28no idea just how bad Sellafield was before they took over.
0:09:31 > 0:09:35Our site managers were saying, "I've never seen anything like this.
0:09:35 > 0:09:37"We've got to get it fixed."
0:09:37 > 0:09:39What sort of state was the infrastructure like at Sellafield?
0:09:39 > 0:09:41Very poor.
0:09:41 > 0:09:43Very poor.
0:09:43 > 0:09:46I can tell you that there are very hazardous materials there,
0:09:46 > 0:09:52as you know, and there were situations where facilities
0:09:52 > 0:09:55or equipment were on the verge of breaking down.
0:09:58 > 0:10:02The condition of the facility and equipment was below what they
0:10:02 > 0:10:07had understood it to be. It wasn't up to standard.
0:10:07 > 0:10:09They were far behind best practice.
0:10:09 > 0:10:11Could it have continued as it was?
0:10:11 > 0:10:14I would not have allowed it to continue.
0:10:17 > 0:10:20Without sounding too dramatic, this is a race against the clock.
0:10:20 > 0:10:21It is a ticking clock, OK?
0:10:21 > 0:10:25Someday, that clock's going to run out and there'll be a problem.
0:10:27 > 0:10:30NMP says safety and performance at
0:10:30 > 0:10:32Sellafield improved across the board.
0:10:34 > 0:10:38But our whistleblower says parts of the infrastructure were still
0:10:38 > 0:10:40seriously rundown.
0:10:43 > 0:10:46Each plant has got a number of complicated systems that are
0:10:46 > 0:10:48keeping you safe -
0:10:48 > 0:10:52electrical systems, ventilation systems, power distribution systems.
0:10:52 > 0:10:55The hard infrastructure, the pipework, the bridges,
0:10:55 > 0:10:57most of this was built 50s, 60s, 70s,
0:10:57 > 0:11:01and the maintenance really wasn't there to stop it failing.
0:11:04 > 0:11:10We've obtained a report written by NMP in 2013.
0:11:10 > 0:11:16It used these pictures to show just how rundown the site had become.
0:11:16 > 0:11:23The report says years of neglect had led to intolerable conditions.
0:11:23 > 0:11:27And minutes of a safety committee highlight failures in the
0:11:27 > 0:11:32supplies of water, electricity, and other essential services.
0:11:32 > 0:11:36Now, Sellafield says things have improved.
0:11:36 > 0:11:41But at a nuclear facility, these basics can't be allowed to fail.
0:11:41 > 0:11:44What do you think of a place like Sellafield having poor
0:11:44 > 0:11:47electricity supply, poor steam supply?
0:11:47 > 0:11:49It's not acceptable.
0:11:49 > 0:11:52There is no other way to say it. It wasn't acceptable.
0:11:54 > 0:11:57What we've been told is that it's dangerously rundown.
0:11:57 > 0:11:59We've seen reports that talk of years of neglect,
0:11:59 > 0:12:01intolerable conditions.
0:12:01 > 0:12:03That doesn't sound safe, does it?
0:12:03 > 0:12:05Well, I don't accept the wording that's used.
0:12:05 > 0:12:08Which bit of the wording? Well, dangerously rundown.
0:12:08 > 0:12:11I don't accept that. Years of neglect, intolerable conditions?
0:12:11 > 0:12:13There are elements that are run down.
0:12:13 > 0:12:16There are elements that are classed as intolerable under the HSE's
0:12:16 > 0:12:18definition of intolerable, which means -
0:12:18 > 0:12:21it is not a natural language definition of the intolerable -
0:12:21 > 0:12:23what it means is that you must spend money to improve it,
0:12:23 > 0:12:26and that's what we're doing.
0:12:29 > 0:12:33So what are the risks if the infrastructure's faulty?
0:12:38 > 0:12:41Well, we've been able to piece together the events from
0:12:41 > 0:12:45November 2013, when Sellafield's
0:12:45 > 0:12:48poor condition led to a serious incident.
0:12:52 > 0:12:56An electricity substation has been badly wired,
0:12:56 > 0:12:58and at ten to seven that morning..
0:12:58 > 0:13:00EXPLOSION
0:13:00 > 0:13:01..it blows.
0:13:03 > 0:13:04ALARM
0:13:04 > 0:13:07Some of these site's nuclear facilities lose power.
0:13:09 > 0:13:13Part of an emergency safety system also fails.
0:13:16 > 0:13:20In one of the treatment plants, an evacuation begins.
0:13:20 > 0:13:25The power cut means the ventilation systems stopped working.
0:13:25 > 0:13:28Radioactive dust is spreading through parts of the building.
0:13:31 > 0:13:35An internal report said it was believed to be the worst
0:13:35 > 0:13:39level of contamination in this plant's history.
0:13:39 > 0:13:41It took a year to make safe.
0:13:43 > 0:13:47But there is a second part to this story.
0:13:47 > 0:13:50A week later, the American consortium's top managers
0:13:50 > 0:13:52appeared before Parliament.
0:13:55 > 0:14:00Sellafield's then managing director Tony Price was asked about the leak.
0:14:00 > 0:14:05But he didn't tell MPs about how serious the situation was.
0:14:24 > 0:14:27To be clear, the workers were wearing special suits and
0:14:27 > 0:14:29respirators. That's not the impression I got in committee.
0:14:29 > 0:14:31He assured me it was all fine.
0:14:31 > 0:14:33It was a whole year before things were fine.
0:14:33 > 0:14:36Well, that's misleading Parliament. That's a very serious matter.
0:14:36 > 0:14:39I'm just gobsmacked, really, that someone could come and tell
0:14:39 > 0:14:42me something that just was patently not the case.
0:14:42 > 0:14:45Sellafield later wrote to the committee twice with
0:14:45 > 0:14:48clarification about the incident.
0:14:48 > 0:14:53But MPs weren't given the complete picture for another 15 months.
0:14:53 > 0:14:57Do you understand why people might get nervous that very senior
0:14:57 > 0:15:02figures at Sellafield seemed to be not entirely straight with
0:15:02 > 0:15:04something like Parliament?
0:15:04 > 0:15:08Well, if that were true, then of course I would understand that.
0:15:08 > 0:15:10Well, in what way is it not true?
0:15:10 > 0:15:11Where am I getting this wrong?
0:15:11 > 0:15:13He said that things were back to normal.
0:15:13 > 0:15:15It took a year for things to go back to normal,
0:15:15 > 0:15:17and that's what he told parliament.
0:15:18 > 0:15:26What had returned within a few days was the normal electrical
0:15:26 > 0:15:29supplies, the normal ventilation, and what have you.
0:15:29 > 0:15:34The production capability of that one line did not return back
0:15:34 > 0:15:37into availability for the 12 months.
0:15:37 > 0:15:39So say we're on the parliamentary committee now,
0:15:39 > 0:15:41and I'm asking you, four days after the event,
0:15:41 > 0:15:44"Are things back to normal?" What would you say to me?
0:15:45 > 0:15:47Well, that's completely hypothetical.
0:15:47 > 0:15:49I don't know what I would say.
0:15:49 > 0:15:52I think the answer is no, isn't it? It took a year to clean up.
0:15:52 > 0:15:54Well... Let's cut to the chase here.
0:15:54 > 0:15:57It looks, doesn't it, like he wasn't being straight?
0:15:57 > 0:16:00There's no way that gentleman was spinning the story.
0:16:02 > 0:16:06NMP told us that at the time of the hearing, Mr Price could not
0:16:06 > 0:16:10have possibly known the full extent of the problem.
0:16:10 > 0:16:14It said the safety and security of Sellafield have always been
0:16:14 > 0:16:18the overriding priorities, and that over the past eight years,
0:16:18 > 0:16:22the site achieved the best overall safety in its history.
0:16:26 > 0:16:30Sellafield admits that some areas of the site currently pose an
0:16:30 > 0:16:32intolerable risk.
0:16:34 > 0:16:37One of the worst is an old concrete storage pond.
0:16:38 > 0:16:43Radioactive waste was dumped here for more than 50 years.
0:16:46 > 0:16:48These are old, decrepit structures,
0:16:48 > 0:16:51holding quite a large quantity of nuclear waste.
0:16:51 > 0:16:55And it's quite worrying to see that things haven't moved on quick
0:16:55 > 0:16:56enough to get that waste out
0:16:56 > 0:16:59and put it somewhere safer.
0:17:02 > 0:17:07As this footage shows, the bottom of the pond is covered in sediment.
0:17:07 > 0:17:12The nuclear waste has corroded to form a radioactive sludge.
0:17:12 > 0:17:15Now, Sellafield has started to remove it,
0:17:15 > 0:17:20but internal documents say the pond has numerous cracks.
0:17:20 > 0:17:22Some are seeping.
0:17:23 > 0:17:27There were some hundreds of cracks.
0:17:27 > 0:17:30Some of which were showing detectable leakage either by
0:17:30 > 0:17:33radiation measurement or by seeing fluids.
0:17:33 > 0:17:35It doesn't mean that all of a sudden,
0:17:35 > 0:17:37the pond was going to empty out into the ground.
0:17:37 > 0:17:41With continued neglect, nobody doing anything,
0:17:41 > 0:17:45we repaired the major leak area already but absent that,
0:17:45 > 0:17:48and continuing degradation, sooner or later, there will be
0:17:48 > 0:17:52a big crack, a big leak, and then there's going to be battle stations.
0:17:54 > 0:17:56It was a different world for me.
0:17:56 > 0:17:58And not a good one? Not a good one.
0:17:58 > 0:18:01Not a good one. It was not...
0:18:01 > 0:18:06It was not up to commercial nuclear standards and... Erm...
0:18:08 > 0:18:10It was just not up to standard.
0:18:12 > 0:18:18Experts say it is unlikely the pond will collapse. But it's possible.
0:18:18 > 0:18:22And that could mean radiation spreading beyond Sellafield.
0:18:22 > 0:18:26If the pond was to catastrophically collapse,
0:18:26 > 0:18:32and water was to drain down, this type of fuel burns in air.
0:18:32 > 0:18:36If it burns, it means particles are dispersed into the atmosphere, so
0:18:36 > 0:18:39you'd be in a situation where you'd be in the laps of the gods here.
0:18:39 > 0:18:42Would it go out to sea? Would it go inland?
0:18:42 > 0:18:44Would a deposit on a village or whatever?
0:18:44 > 0:18:47It could be a significant radioactive plume maybe
0:18:47 > 0:18:50stretching to 100 to 150km.
0:18:53 > 0:18:56We've been told that there are hundreds of cracks.
0:18:56 > 0:18:58Is that accurate?
0:18:58 > 0:19:01Concrete structures have cracks in them and there are indeed
0:19:01 > 0:19:04hundreds in the walls of that building.
0:19:04 > 0:19:05But some are leaking?
0:19:05 > 0:19:09There are a small number, a small proportion which are...
0:19:09 > 0:19:15Do show signs of let's say seepage over the years.
0:19:15 > 0:19:18And those are the ones that I monitor to establish that
0:19:18 > 0:19:20there is no issue.
0:19:20 > 0:19:22It's been said to us by several people that one of the
0:19:22 > 0:19:26possibilities is if that pond leaks, it would create a fire.
0:19:26 > 0:19:29The material in there is pyrophoric. It would burst into flames.
0:19:29 > 0:19:32And that would create a very dangerous plume.
0:19:32 > 0:19:35Is that something that you're concerned about?
0:19:35 > 0:19:38I think that's a...
0:19:38 > 0:19:41That particular scenario is very extreme.
0:19:41 > 0:19:45But possible? Is very extreme.
0:19:45 > 0:19:50All that is necessary to prevent that sort of fuel setting
0:19:50 > 0:19:52fire is to keep it wet.
0:19:53 > 0:19:55That's all that's necessary.
0:19:57 > 0:20:02Another highly dangerous area of Sellafield is another old
0:20:02 > 0:20:04nuclear waste dump.
0:20:04 > 0:20:08This time, the waste is stored in silos in a concrete building.
0:20:10 > 0:20:14They're built by people hastily in the 1950s because they needed
0:20:14 > 0:20:17places to store these materials.
0:20:17 > 0:20:20So these are not the kind of facilities that were intended
0:20:20 > 0:20:22to hold waste for a long period of time.
0:20:22 > 0:20:27The silos are now so degraded Sellafield says they too pose
0:20:27 > 0:20:29an intolerable risk.
0:20:29 > 0:20:35As this footage shows, they contain metal and other radioactive waste.
0:20:35 > 0:20:39It's material that would burn on contact with air.
0:20:39 > 0:20:42We've got a cleanup program involving one of these
0:20:42 > 0:20:45facilities that's scheduled to take another 20 or 25 years.
0:20:45 > 0:20:48We don't have a lot of confidence that building is going to
0:20:48 > 0:20:50hold up another 20 or 25 years.
0:20:50 > 0:20:53It doesn't mean we think it's going to fall down tomorrow.
0:20:53 > 0:20:55But as time goes by, it gets worse.
0:20:58 > 0:21:02The radioactive material shown in this Sellafield footage needs
0:21:02 > 0:21:06to be removed before the silos degrade too far.
0:21:06 > 0:21:09But we've discovered that Sellafield spent nine years and more
0:21:09 > 0:21:13than ?200 million on a plan that was shelved.
0:21:15 > 0:21:18It included a robotic arm that was supposed to reach inside and
0:21:18 > 0:21:20retrieve the waste
0:21:20 > 0:21:22but was never built.
0:21:24 > 0:21:28A leaked report says poor leadership had allowed the project to
0:21:28 > 0:21:30drift out of control.
0:21:30 > 0:21:32What happened to that ?200 million?
0:21:32 > 0:21:35The vast majority of the money that's been spent on that
0:21:35 > 0:21:37project, the building of the superstructure,
0:21:37 > 0:21:38the means of cutting holes,
0:21:38 > 0:21:41the means of putting doors over the holes etc, will still be used.
0:21:41 > 0:21:43The specific robotic arm won't be used,
0:21:43 > 0:21:45because we've now got a better technology.
0:21:45 > 0:21:48But that's completely different to saying that we've...
0:21:48 > 0:21:50In your phrase wasted ?200 million.
0:21:50 > 0:21:51I don't accept that at all.
0:21:53 > 0:21:56But 11 years after work started,
0:21:56 > 0:22:00Sellafield still hasn't removed any waste from this building.
0:22:08 > 0:22:10If things do go wrong,
0:22:10 > 0:22:13it's vital Sellafield can deal with an emergency.
0:22:15 > 0:22:18The site has its own fire service.
0:22:18 > 0:22:23In 2012, a report by the nuclear regulator said it does not
0:22:23 > 0:22:27have the level of capability required to respond to the
0:22:27 > 0:22:30nuclear emergencies effectively.
0:22:30 > 0:22:36And a Sellafield report from 2013 says significant gaps exist
0:22:36 > 0:22:40in all major aspects of emergency management.
0:22:40 > 0:22:44Significant gaps exist in all major aspects of emergency planning?
0:22:44 > 0:22:46This is not a very attractive picture, is it?
0:22:46 > 0:22:51We've done a huge amount of work in recent years in order to
0:22:51 > 0:22:55ensure that the fire and rescue services are in a position to
0:22:55 > 0:22:58continue to support the site's safe operation.
0:22:58 > 0:23:02We keep going through the different areas, sir, and you tell me that all
0:23:02 > 0:23:06is well, so either I'm wrong every time, or you're slightly in denial?
0:23:06 > 0:23:07We are absolutely not in denial.
0:23:07 > 0:23:13Safety is our priority and we are managing a very complex site,
0:23:13 > 0:23:15which has got a great deal of hazardous radioactive
0:23:15 > 0:23:19materials on it, so these are not simple, straightforward decisions.
0:23:19 > 0:23:21The last two and a half years have
0:23:21 > 0:23:24seen significant improvements on the site.
0:23:24 > 0:23:27We have put particular pressure on Sellafield to make
0:23:27 > 0:23:30improvements in this area.
0:23:30 > 0:23:33Those improvements are now by and large realised and we are
0:23:33 > 0:23:37happy with the standards that the site's achieving.
0:23:39 > 0:23:43But some parts of Sellafield are kept open even when everyone
0:23:43 > 0:23:46agrees there are safety problems.
0:23:46 > 0:23:51Take Magnox, one of the main reprocessing plants on the site.
0:23:51 > 0:23:55In 2014, it marked its 50th anniversary.
0:23:56 > 0:24:00This is a facility that has run safely for 50 years,
0:24:00 > 0:24:0452,000 tonnes, and it's run safely in one of the heaviest,
0:24:04 > 0:24:07most regulated industries in the world.
0:24:08 > 0:24:11But a report from the nuclear regulator says
0:24:11 > 0:24:14a few months earlier, there'd been an incident that could
0:24:14 > 0:24:17potentially have been fatal for workers.
0:24:18 > 0:24:22And then there was another incident that could have resulted in
0:24:22 > 0:24:26a criticality, a nuclear reaction that could have killed someone.
0:24:28 > 0:24:31But these warnings from the regulator are dismissed by
0:24:31 > 0:24:35the government official in charge of Sellafield.
0:24:35 > 0:24:37It says in the report that these were potentially fatal.
0:24:37 > 0:24:39That someone's view. I don't accept that view.
0:24:39 > 0:24:42So you'd don't accept reports, so what's the point in having
0:24:42 > 0:24:43a report if it's investigated, it says it
0:24:43 > 0:24:46is a potentially fatal incident, and you just dismiss that?
0:24:46 > 0:24:48No, I'm not dismissing it. You just did. No, I didn't.
0:24:48 > 0:24:50What I said is I disagree with an element of
0:24:50 > 0:24:53a particularly emotive statement about near fatal.
0:24:53 > 0:24:56I absolutely accept that there are elements in that which were not
0:24:56 > 0:24:57as we wished them to be.
0:24:57 > 0:25:00Actions have been taken to make sure that they've been improved.
0:25:00 > 0:25:03A broader view was taken as to what was the right thing to do in
0:25:03 > 0:25:06the best overall interests of safety on that site.
0:25:06 > 0:25:08Over the following year,
0:25:08 > 0:25:12there were two more serious safety failures at the Magnox plant.
0:25:12 > 0:25:16The regulator published this extraordinary report.
0:25:18 > 0:25:20It says it would normally consider
0:25:20 > 0:25:23closure because of the safety problems.
0:25:24 > 0:25:27But then it also says that that would lead to
0:25:27 > 0:25:30a dangerous pileup of nuclear waste.
0:25:30 > 0:25:34So although further breaches and safety are likely,
0:25:34 > 0:25:37Magnox is allowed to carry on running.
0:25:41 > 0:25:43If the plant wasn't safe,
0:25:43 > 0:25:45we wouldn't have allowed it to continue operating.
0:25:45 > 0:25:48But what we did was we made a balanced decision,
0:25:48 > 0:25:53looking at the strengths and weaknesses that the plant
0:25:53 > 0:25:59has and we felt that allowing continued operation under
0:25:59 > 0:26:03close supervision was the right course of action.
0:26:03 > 0:26:06Magnox is like much of the Sellafield site.
0:26:06 > 0:26:11There are risks to keeping it open, but it's too important to close.
0:26:13 > 0:26:15But if Sellafield can't be closed down,
0:26:15 > 0:26:19no matter how poorly it performs, where does that leave me and you?
0:26:19 > 0:26:23Where does it leave the general public? Well, paying the tag.
0:26:25 > 0:26:27And that price tag keeps on rising.
0:26:27 > 0:26:30Sellafield's main job, reprocessing,
0:26:30 > 0:26:33is due to finish within four years.
0:26:33 > 0:26:37But the cleanup may take 100 years.
0:26:37 > 0:26:44We've now been told it could cost as much as ?162 billion.
0:26:45 > 0:26:48It is unimaginable for most taxpayers, this amount of money.
0:26:48 > 0:26:49It's enormous.
0:26:49 > 0:26:52And they've got to just be really much more transparent about
0:26:52 > 0:26:55how they're working out the costs.
0:26:55 > 0:26:57It does feel like a blank cheque.
0:26:57 > 0:27:00How much is this going to cost the nation, to clean up Sellafield?
0:27:00 > 0:27:02Oh, I don't know.
0:27:03 > 0:27:08There are financial projections over the planned period which goes
0:27:08 > 0:27:10out more than 100 years.
0:27:10 > 0:27:12They are simply projections.
0:27:15 > 0:27:20The American consortium had been criticised over rising costs.
0:27:20 > 0:27:24Its contract to run Sellafield was terminated in April.
0:27:25 > 0:27:28The government says it wanted direct control,
0:27:28 > 0:27:31and it insists Sellafield is safe.
0:27:32 > 0:27:35So there are 10,000 people who work at Sellafield.
0:27:35 > 0:27:37They all live in the local community.
0:27:37 > 0:27:39I live two miles from the site.
0:27:39 > 0:27:43There's no way that anybody like that, me or others,
0:27:43 > 0:27:46would choose to live on the doorstep of something if we thought we were
0:27:46 > 0:27:48putting ourselves and our communities at risk. No way at all.
0:27:48 > 0:27:51So absolutely the site remains safe
0:27:51 > 0:27:53today and it will remain safe tomorrow and it will remain
0:27:53 > 0:27:55safe into the future.
0:27:58 > 0:28:04But our whistleblower worries that safety is an ongoing and real risk.
0:28:04 > 0:28:08What's the thing that most worries you about Sellafield?
0:28:08 > 0:28:12It's the fire in one of the silos or one of the processing plants.
0:28:12 > 0:28:15If there's a fire there, it could generate
0:28:15 > 0:28:19a plume of radiological waste that will go across Western Europe.
0:28:23 > 0:28:27This is the world's most complex nuclear facility.
0:28:29 > 0:28:33But we have found poor management, rundown infrastructure,
0:28:33 > 0:28:34and safety failings.
0:28:36 > 0:28:40Sellafield - the nuclear site that struggles with the basics.
0:29:14 > 0:29:15It's a real labour of love.
0:29:15 > 0:29:15That's why we're giving you extra tips...
0:29:15 > 0:29:18A garden takes time to perfect.
0:29:18 > 0:29:21It needs patience to get just right.