Office for Nuclear Regulation

This website uses non-intrusive anonymous cookies to improve your user experience. You can visit our cookie privacy page for more information, including details on how to opt-out.

In relation to FOI201902062 - Wylfa Magnox R1: parasol grab loss 31.07.1993

Date released
6 June 2019
Request number
201905011
Release of information under
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information requested

Thank you for your communication of 28 March 2019, and the four attachments.

Upon reviewing attachments, I am obliged to make a following request.

  1. Document 2: The transcript summary appears to have been prepared in response to my request. As it stands, this summary does not inform sufficiently the behaviour, disposition, judgement or response in real time over the course of the event in question. Is there validreason for not disclosing the transcript in its entirety?
  2. Document 3a: This lists all alleged breaches of Licence conditions. Each count refers, in turn, to evidence contained in the Blue, Green and Yellow Files respectively, as well as in video and audio tapes comprising the Trial Bundles (listed in Document 1). In the absence of sight of respective referenced evidence, It is difficult to make sense of individual charges. Would it be possible to request Document 1, Trial Bundle evidence?
  3. Document 3b: This five-line passage appears to be a cryptic extract from Dr Harbison's evidence. It is not possible to ascertain the context or relevance in relation to the entirety of Dr Harbison's evidence. Is there any chance of sight of Dr Harbison’s full evidence?
  4. Redactions: Are FOI section 40 exemptions in Document 3a pursuant to the Court’s ruling at the time? If not, does section 40 apply ex-post properly to prosecution documents or historical proceedings?
  5. The Court’s ruling: It is not apparent from the attachments which breach was upheld or what the Court ruled on each count. Might this information be available?

Information released

We have undertaken a further search of records held and offer the following information in answer to your questions. For ease, I have numbered your questions 1-5.

With reference to your document 2 question. The transcript summary provided in ONR’s original response dated 28 March 2019 is as recorded in ONR’s archived file. It was not prepared in response to your original request.

With reference to your document 3a question. ONR does not hold the Blue, Red, Green, Yellow files or audio and video tapes listed in the evidence. However, the further search ONR has undertaken has located the ‘trial-sentencing transcript (Mold crown court reference T95/0026)’ which we include in this response and trust will assist you.

Some information in the ‘trial-sentencing transcript (Mold crown court reference T95/0026)’ document has been redacted because it contains personal data. The personal data has been withheld using the exemption section 40 (Personal information) of the FOIA. The exemption allows public authorities to protect personal information. This is an absolute exemption so does not require a Public Interest Test. Please refer to the Information Commissioner’s Office website for full details.

With reference to your document 3b question. The document provided in ONR’s original response is as recorded in ONR’s archived file. It was not prepared in response to your original request.

With reference to your question about the redactions. The section 40 FOIA exemption was not pursuant to the Court’s ruling at the time (given that FOIA did not exist in 1993). However, it is appropriate for us to rely on the s40 exemption for prosecution documents, including historical proceedings. The information contains personal data of someone else and disclosure would contravene the data protection principles. Please refer to the Information Commissioner’s Office website for full details.

With reference to your question about which breach was upheld or what the Court ruled on each count. The ‘trial-sentencing transcript (Mold crown court reference T95/0026)’ which we have included in this response provides further details.

However, the charges to which Nuclear Electric pleaded guilty to being in breach of were:

For further details regarding the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, Section 2 please refer to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/part/II and for further details regarding the site licence conditions please refer to the site licence condition handbook .

Exemptions applied

N/A

PIT (Public Interest Test) if applicable

N/A