Professional Engineering

Almost a year on from the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan, experts and executives from the UK’s regulatory and safety bodies found themselves being grilled by MPs on the science and technology committee about the perception of risk to the British nuclear sector.

Among those questioned were Dr Mike Weightman, the chief inspector of nuclear installations and head of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, whose report on the implications of Fukushima for the UK appeared in its final form late last year. Also in attendance were Environment Agency boss Dr Paul Leinster and Geoffrey Podger, chief executive of the Health and Safety Executive.

The Environment Agency and HSE have of course been involved in assessing the fitness for build of two nuclear reactor designs as part of the generic design assessment process. The officials from these bodies were quizzed on their independence from government and the role they played in communicating to the public and enforcing legislation. Leinster said there was a “considerable amount of public engagement” over new nuclear and that the Environment Agency tried to act with “openness and transparency”. 

Dr Jill Meara of the Health Protection Agency said that while her organisation had no regulatory role it stood to provide advice to the whole community, and an example of its work had been in establishing a reduced radiological dose constraint. She said the agency was neutral about nuclear new build, but had a duty to “explain the risk to the public”.

The HSE can act as a policy adviser and prosecutor, and, although concerned with industry, it was not “industry captured”, said Podger: “We have significant disagreements.” 

Stephen Metcalfe MP asked the officials about the level of public awareness of nuclear new build. Leinster of the Environment Agency said that in Hinkley, Somerset, where the first of the new nuclear power stations was to be built, awareness of the risks, rewards and regulators was likely to be higher but the person on the street “wouldn’t say our names unprompted”. In areas where nuclear power had established itself as an economic force, tolerance of risk was also likely to be higher. 

Podger said the HSE enjoyed a profile for certain “high hazards but on a local day-to-day basis the public may struggle”. 

The MPs asked how communication with the public could be improved. It did not help nuclear’s cause that relatively minor incidents could be blown out of all proportion in the media. Ratings of nuclear disasters that put Fukushima on a par with Chernobyl could also be misleading. Weightman said trust in nuclear was “difficult to earn and easily lost”. 

The guidance given by Sir John Beddington, the government’s chief scientific adviser, to expat Brits in Fukushima – that they would have been exposed to more radiation by the flight home if they’d fled – was singled out for praise by the MPs. 

All in all, the various experts questioned by the committee thought that much progress had been made in communicating a true picture of the risks involved in nuclear power. But when something goes wrong “we can’t fill all the TV studios,” said Meara of the Health Protection Agency.