Revealed: three tonnes of uranium legally dumped in protected English estuary in nine years | Nuclear waste

The company’s Environmental Agency allowed the discharge of three tons of uranium in one of the most protected sites in England over the past nine years, which can be detected, as experts show a warning on the potential environmental impact of these disciplines.

The documents obtained by the guardian and Ending report Through requests freedom of information, it was found that the nuclear fuel factory near Preston led to the interpretation of large quantities of uranium – legally, in light of his environmental permit conditions – to Ribbble River Between 2015 and 2024, the peak drains reached in 2015 when 703 kg of uranium was discharged, according to the documents.

The raw uranium rock canceled from all over the world is brought to the Springfield Fuel Filler in Lea Town, a small village about five miles from PrestonWhere the rock is treated and purified to create uranium fuel bars.

according to Factory siteSeveral million fuel elements have provided reactors in 11 different countries.

The discharge point of uranium versions is located within the estuary marine preservation area, which is One of the most protected sites In the country – it was classified as a special scientific interest, a special protection zone (SPA) and the RAMSAR (wet lands known as international importance).

The latest government Radiation activity in the food and environment reportIt was published in November 2024, indicating that in 2023, it was the total dose of radiation from the fuel Springfields, about 4 % of the maximum dose that was appointed to protect the audience from radiation.

However, Dr. Ian Firlieli, an independent advisor for radioactivity in the environment, who was a scientific secretary of the UK government committee that examines the risk of radiation for internal players, in terms of radioactive activity, was the discharges of Springfields, Springfields fuel “very large”.

“I am concerned about this high level. It is worrying,” he said, in particular, in particular to the discharge of 2015.

in 2009 evaluationThe Environment Agency concluded that the total dose rate of the radioactive activity of river rivers and alternatives was “much more” than the agreed threshold of 40 MicroGray/H, which the organizers agreed to have no negative impact on the safety of a protected location. The report found that the calculated total dose rate of the most affected living organisms was more than 10 times higher than this threshold, with radioactive offices from Springfields Fuels.

As a result, a A more detailed evaluation It was implemented. In this recent report, it was concluded that, based on the new permitted discharge limits, which were reduced due to the planned operational changes in Springfields, the dose to wildlife rates were lower than the agreed threshold, and therefore there was no negative impact on the safety of the protected site.

According to the current environmental permit of the site, there is no limit to the weight of uranium drainage, which itself sparked eyebrows. Instead, uranium drainage is limited in terms of radiological activity, with the annual maximum of 0.04 terapkerls. Before that, the drainage limit was 0.1 TERABECQUERELS.

Terabecquerel is a unit of radioactive activity equal to 1tn becquerels. Becquerel represents one of the radioactive decay rates equal to one radioactive decay.

Despite this most compromise, it was agreed six years ago, experts have raised concerns about the continued drainage approved from the site.

Fairlile specifically questioned the modeling of the Environment Agency of how to classify this level of discharge as safe. He said: “This is a very high level. Risk modeling in the environment agency may be unreliable. It makes the emptying limits unsafe.”

The Environment Agency said that its operations to assess the effects of habitats were “strong and follow -up of international best practices, including the use of the gradual evaluation approach.”

703 kg of uranium that was empty in 2015 was “exceptionally large”.

“Disadvantages of heavy metals in the environment are never good, especially when these minerals are radioactive,” said Dr. Doug Bar, Greenpeace UK.

A spokesman for the Environment Agency declined to comment directly, but the organizer said that he specifies “strict environmental permit conditions for all nuclear operators in England, including Springfields Fuels Limited.”

She said that these permits are based on “detailed and designed technical assessments to ensure that any drainage of radioactive materials, including uranium, is not an unacceptable danger to people or the environment.”

While the radioactive activity of the government in food and the environment found that radiation sources from the Springfield fuel were about 4 % of the maximum dose for the audience, it also concluded that radioactive offices – specifically uranium isotopes – were discovered in the direction of the estuary in the deposits and homes in the mouth of networks caused by spring accidents.

This is not the first time that uranium levels have been observed in the silt of silt. research The British Geological Survey (BGS) discovered in 2002 that the “high -sided” concentrations of uranium in a sample silt in the direction of the river course from the Springfields facility.

The highest registered level in the BGS report was 60 micrograms/g of uranium in silt-compared to the background level of 3-4μg/g. The researchers described this as “great anomaly.”

The Environmental Agency said that the environmental monitoring by the organizer himself and Springfields fuel to assess the impact of disciplines on people and the environment “did not show a cause of concern.”

The UK is looking to expand the capabilities of nuclear fuel production, Including in Springfields fuel. This is in order to increase energy security and reduce dependence on Russian fuel, and Delivery of a goal From 24 GB of the new nuclear power by 2050.

Springfield did not respond to the frequent requests for comment.