Nuclear site told to improve safety after worker hurt
Dounreay's operators have been told to improve safety at the site after a piece of equipment toppled over and injured a worker.
The accident happened at the nuclear power complex, near Thurso in Caithness, in February.
Industry watchdog the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said the worker escaped with minor injuries, but added that it considered the incident as "significant" and "preventable".
ONR has issued Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS) with an improvement notice.
NRS said it took the protection of people and the environment "very seriously".
More stories from the Highlands and Islands
News from the Highlands and Islands on BBC Sounds
ONR said the a radiological contamination monitor, weighing about two tonnes, toppled over while it was being moved.
Superintending inspector Tom Eagleton said: "This was a preventable incident that could have had serious consequences for those nearby.
"The improvement notice requires the Dounreay site to implement measures that will reduce the risk of similar occurrences in the future.
"Specifically, they must identify all operations involving the movement of heavy equipment and ensure comprehensive risk assessments and appropriate control measures are implemented before the work starts."
NRS has until 25 July to comply with the notice.
A spokesperson for NRS said: "We take the protection of people and the environment from harm very seriously.
"We are taking action to strengthen our practices and management in this area, and will comply with the requirements of the notice received in April, having reported the incident to ONR and carried out an investigation."
Dounreay was opened 70 years ago as an experimental nuclear power site and is now being decommissioned and the site shut down.
Last year, ONR raised safety concerns about the state of some areas of the complex.
It found corroded steelwork in a building being used to store drums of radioactive sodium, and leaks from low-level radioactive waste pits.
NRS said it was carrying out urgent repairs and had an action plan to deal with other issues.
These included ONR's warnings about old and degraded electric equipment and the site's stockpile of chemicals being over its set limit.
ONR
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Who's responsible for cracked streetlights leaning over a Boston road?
The I-Team is getting the bottom of a potentially dangerous problem in a Boston neighborhood. Ann Marie Ford lives in Dorchester and says she's concerned about the streetlights along Gallivan Boulevard. Many look to be in in disrepair, and she says they could pose a danger. Ann Marie pointed out the cracks, rust and crumbling concrete telling the I-Team, "I was kind of shocked, because we just saw the one and then when we looked up, we saw them all down the median and it's dangerous." "Someone could get killed" Potentially dangerous because the light poles are leaning into the street. We brought in Wentworth Institute of Technology Engineering Professor James Lambrechts who explained the danger. "Someone could get killed," Lambrechts said. Streetlight leaning on Gallivan Blvd. in Boston. CBS Boston Lambrechts says it's clear the poles are leaning towards the highway. "As it leans more, it bends more," Lambrechts said. "Its foundation is going to be overloaded. That's not good." Lambrechts found the poles are not just leaning, but cracking. "These are not good things for the pole to have this problem and it shouldn't be like this," Lambrechts said. Who owns the streetlights? Gallivan Boulevard is a state DOT road. The I-Team asked for the inspection reports for the streetlights. DOT told us DCR owns the road. It does not. State records show Gallivan Boulevard was transferred to DOT in 2009. DOT then said Eversource owns the poles and told us it has notified the utility company about possible safety or maintenance issues. But they could not tell us when the poles were last inspected or whether the repairs or maintenance had been done. "You got to come out and maintain these things every once in a while," Lambrechts said. "They all need to be inspected, evaluated and replaced as necessary." Eversource has received calls about streetlights As for Eversource, it refused to provide the I-Team with any records, but released a statement: "Delivering safe, reliable energy service to our customers is always our top priority, and we are constantly working to maintain and upgrade our local electric distribution system across Massachusetts. With respect to the streetlights on Gallivan Boulevard, our maintenance responsibilities currently include maintenance of the pole, cable and luminaire. We also inspect these streetlights annually for stray voltage, and if we record an elevated voltage reading or other issue on a Gallivan Boulevard streetlight structure, we provide those findings and locations to the commonwealth. Our troubleshooters - who are out in our communities 24/7 - are also constantly evaluating the condition of infrastructure, including streetlights, as part of their daily work. If our crews observe that a pole's condition poses a safety risk to the public, we work as quickly as possible to address that risk with the appropriate repairs, including replacements when needed. It is important to note that there are different considerations for concrete streetlight poles compared to a wooden utility pole, and if a concrete streetlight pole may have a lean, or visible crack, it doesn't necessarily pose a risk to public safety. Gallivan Boulevard is a highly traversed state roadway with motor vehicle accidents that can cause such damage. Our customer call center has received a handful of calls about streetlights on Gallivan Boulevard this year, and any reports made to our call center about streetlight conditions get assigned for additional inspection. The City of Boston and our state agencies also have dedicated account representatives who communicate with those entities on a daily basis, and we have not received any separate recent complaints regarding streetlights on Gallivan Boulevard from state agencies or the city. When we do receive complaints, we have a process in place to coordinate with MassDOT and the City of Boston to quickly address any potential safety or reliability issues. Any decision to make a repair or to replace a pole is prioritized solely by safety and reliability." Problem light poles in Boston Lambrechts says it's their responsibility to maintain the poles. "If it falls over it's not safe," Lambrechts said. The risk of light poles in poor condition falling is real. In September of 2022, a woman was seriously injured when a corroded streetlight fell on the Moakley Bridge in Boston. An I-Team investigation found the city knew about the problem as far back as 2017. WBZ also uncovered a state report from months earlier showing the poles required immediate repair, but nothing was done. After the incident the city removed nearly two dozen dangerous poles. As for the streetlights on Gallivan Boulevard, Lambrechts says maybe there is a protocol to change these out, but if not, he says he would not drive on the roadway in a storm. Just weeks ago, DOT started a new program requiring inspections and the keeping of records for structures along their roadways, regardless of who owns them.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Systemic failures led to a door plug flying off a Boeing 737 Max, NTSB says
The heroic actions by the crew of Alaska Airlines flight 1282 ensured everyone survived last year when a door plug panel flew off the plane shortly after takeoff, leaving a gaping hole that sucked objects out of the cabin, National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said Tuesday. But Homendy said 'the crew shouldn't have had to be heroes, because this accident never should have happened.' The board found that lapses in Boeing's manufacturing and safety oversight, combined with ineffective inspections and audits by the Federal Aviation Administration, led to the terrifying malfunction. The NTSB investigation over the past 17 months found that four bolts securing what is known as the door plug panel were removed and never replaced during a repair as the Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft was being assembled. The blowout occurred minutes after the flight took off from Portland, Oregon, and created a roaring air vacuum. Seven passengers and one flight attendant sustained minor injuries, but none of the 177 aboard were killed. Pilots landed the plane safely back at the airport. Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems — the company that made and installed the door plug — are redesigning them with another backup system to keep the panels in place even if the bolts are missing, but that improvement isn't likely to be certified by the FAA until 2026 at the soonest. The NTSB urged the companies and the regulator to make sure every 737 Max is retrofitted with those new panels. Both Boeing and the FAA have improved training and processes since the incident, according to the NTSB, but board officials said the company and agency need to better identify manufacturing risks and address them to make sure such flaws never sneak through again. Homendy did single out Boeing's new CEO, Kelly Ortberg, for improving safety since he took over last summer, though she said more needs to be done. The NTSB recommended that Boeing continue improving its training and safety standards and make sure everyone knows when actions must be documented. Board members also highlighted the need to ensure that everyone throughout the company understands its safety plan as well as executives do. The board also urged the FAA to step up and make sure its audits and inspections address key areas based on past problems and systemic issues. The agency was also encouraged Tuesday to assess Boeing's safety culture and reconsider its longstanding policy not to require children under 2 to travel in their own seats with proper restraints. Many of the NTSB recommendations echo a report the Transportation Department's Inspector General issued last year and that the FAA is already working to implement. The FAA said in a statement that it 'has fundamentally changed how it oversees Boeing since the Alaska Airlines door-plug accident and we will continue this aggressive oversight to ensure Boeing fixes its systemic production-quality issues. We are actively monitoring Boeing's performance and meet weekly with the company to review its progress and any challenges it's facing in implementing necessary changes.' In a statement, Boeing said it will review the NTSB report as it continues to improve. 'We at Boeing regret this accident and continue to work on strengthening safety and quality across our operations,' the company said. Oxygen masks dropped and phones went flying The accident occurred as the plane flew at 14,830 feet (4,520 meters). Oxygen masks dropped during the rapid decompression and a few cellphones and other objects were swept through the hole in the plane as the passengers and crew contended with wind and roaring noise. The first six minutes of the flight to Southern California's Ontario International Airport were routine. The plane was about halfway to its cruising altitude and traveling at more than 400 mph (640 kph) when passengers described a loud 'boom' and wind so strong it ripped the shirt off someone's back. 'We knew something was wrong,' Kelly Bartlett told The Associated Press in the days following the flight. 'We didn't know what. We didn't know how serious. We didn't know if it meant we were going to crash.' The 2-foot-by-4-foot (61-centimeter-by-122-centimeter) piece of fuselage covering an unused emergency exit behind the left wing had blown out. Only seven seats on the flight were unoccupied, including the two seats closest to the opening. NTSB member J. Todd Inman said the Alaska Airlines accident would have been worse if it had happened over the ocean and far from land, but the carrier had already restricted the plane used for flight 1282 to overland flights because of an unresolved maintenance issue with a fuel pump. The airline took that step on its own, going beyond FAA requirements, Inman said. Missing bolts put the focus on Boeing's manufacturing The panel that blew off was was removed at a Boeing factory so workers could repair five damaged rivets, but bolts that help secure the door plug were not replaced. It's not clear who removed the panel. The NTSB said in a preliminary report that four bolts were not replaced after the repair job but the work was not documented. Investigators determined the door plug was gradually moving upward over the 154 flights prior to this incident before it ultimately flew off. Boeing factory workers told NTSB investigators they felt pressured to work too fast and were asked to perform jobs they weren't qualified for. None of the 24 people on the door team were ever trained to remove a door plug before working on the plane in question and only one of them had ever removed one before. That person was on vacation when it was done in this instance. No one from the door team was working when the plug was reinstalled. Investigators said Boeing did not do enough to train newer workers who didn't have a background in manufacturing. Many who were hired after the pandemic and after two crashes involving the 737 Max planes lacked that experience, and there weren't clear standards for on-the-job training. NTSB staff also told the board that Boeing didn't have strong enough safety practices in place to ensure the door plug was properly reinstalled, and the FAA inspection system did not do a good job of catching systemic failures in manufacturing. Boeing was required to adopt a more rigorous set of safety standards after a 2015 settlement, but the NTSB said that plan had only been in place for two years before the specific Alaska Airlines plane that suffered the door plug's failure was made and that it was still being developed. The FAA regularly conducts more than 50 audits a year on Boeing's manufacturing, but there aren't clear standards for what those audits cover. The agency routinely discarded past inspection records after five years and didn't always base its inspection plan on those past findings. Problems with the Boeing 737 Max The Max version of Boeing's bestselling 737 airplane has been the source of persistent troubles for the company since two of the jets crashed, one in Indonesia in 2018 and another in Ethiopia in 2019, killing a combined 346 people. Investigators determined those crashes were caused by a system that relied on a sensor providing faulty readings to push the nose down, leaving pilots unable to regain control. After the second crash, Max jets were grounded worldwide until the company redesigned the system. Last month, the Justice Department reached a deal allowing Boeing to avoid criminal prosecution for allegedly misleading U.S. regulators about the Max before the two crashes. Regulators at the Federal Aviation Administration have capped Boeing's 737 Max production at 38 jets a month while investigators ensure the company has strengthened its safety practices, and the agency said it has no plans to lift that cap 'until we are confident the company can maintain safety and quality while making more aircraft.' Boeing hired Ortberg last year and created a new position for a senior vice president of quality to help improve its manufacturing. The company was back in the news earlier this month when a 787 flown by Air India crashed shortly after takeoff and killed at least 270 people. Investigators have not determined what caused that crash, but so far they have not found any flaws with the model, which has a strong safety record. ___ This story revises the aircraft's altitude to 14,830 feet from 16,000 feet based on updated information from the NTSB. ___ Associated Press writer Claire Rush in Portland, Oregon, contributed to this report.
Travel Weekly
a day ago
- Travel Weekly
Indian aviation regulator finds safety failures at major airports
A review by India's civil aviation ministry has identified a series of safety failings by airport teams and airlines at Mumbai and New Delhi airports. For the review, teams led by the country's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) monitored ground activities and aircraft movements to check for compliance with regulatory requirements, as well as to identify weak areas in need of improvement, the agency said in an announcement. The review, the DGCA explained, covered flight operations, airworthiness, ramp safety, air traffic control, communication, preflight medical evaluations and navigation and surveillance systems. The DGCA didn't mention airlines or other entities by name. But the agency did note specific types of failures. For example, review teams saw multiple cases in which reported aircraft defects re-appeared many times, indicating ineffective aircraft monitoring and rectification action. Monitors also observed a maintenance work order that was not followed and occasions when inadequate safety precautions were taken during maintenance. At one airport, a centerline runway marking was faded. In another case, an aircraft simulator was found to not match with the aircraft configuration. And in yet another detailed failing, a domestic flight had to be canceled due to worn tires. "All the findings observed during the surveillance have been communicated to the concerned operators for taking necessary corrective actions within seven days," the DGCA said. "This process of comprehensive surveillance will continue in future to detect hazards in the system." The review came amid enhanced scrutiny and focus on Indian aviation safety following the June 12 crash of and Air India flight in Ahmedabad, which killed 241 passengers and crew and 29 people on the ground.
