Written Answers. - THORP Reprocessing Plant.
Trevor Sargent
Question:
11
Mr. Sargent
asked the
Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications
the progress, if any, to date made by the interdepartmental committee established to bring about the closure of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria, England.
[14716/95]
Liz O'Donnell
Question:
17
Ms O'Donnell
asked the
Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications
the assistance, if any, he intends to give to the STAD campaign against THORP.
[12536/95]
Seamus Brennan
Question:
18
Mr. S. Brennan
asked the
Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications
if he will raise the issue of the THORP reprocessing plant with his British counterpart and seek British Government support for its closure.
[11175/95]
Máirín Quill
Question:
27
Miss Quill
asked the
Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications
the action, if any, he intends to take in the European Court against BNFL following the apparent breach of EC Directives in the commissioning of THORP, in particular EC Directives 85/337/EEC, 80/836 and 90/313/EEC.
[12546/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 17, 18 and 27 together.
The Government has used, and continues to use, every opportunity at all appropriate international fora, in particular at the European Union level and the Paris Commission, as well as direct representations to the United Kingdom Government, to highlight its concerns about Sellafield and to object to THORP's commissioning. Two comprehensive submissions were forwarded to the UK authorities which detailed Ireland's absolute opposition to the THORP plant and, more recently, I have objected to the proposed development of a Rock Characterisation Facility at Sellafield which could lead to the location there of a deep repository for nuclear waste.
I have written in the strongest terms to the UK Minister for Energy, Mr. Tim Eggar, MP, and to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. John Gummer MP, expressing my grave concern at the seriousness of the nuclear incident at Wylfa and expressed the Government's and the Irish public's concerns about the age, safety and reliability of Magnox reactors, such as those at Wylfa and Sellafield and, indeed, the level of safety in the UK's nuclear industry generally. In addition, the Attorney General has been asked to examine if there is any scope for Ireland to take an action under the EURATOM Treaty in respect of the Wylfa incident.
More recently, the Taoiseach raised our concerns about the nuclear industry with the British Prime Minister at the recent Majorca Summit and the Prime Minister has undertaken to revert to the Taoiseach on the matter.
The latest expression of concern was by the Minister for the Environment when he raised the Wylfa incident at the EU Council of Environment Ministers last Friday, 6 October. We have also raised our concerns on a range of issues, including the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield, at the IAEA General Conference held in Vienna from 18 to 22 September 1995.
The ministerial committee on Sellafield and the Irish Sea was set up by the Government to progress the commitments in the Government's policy agreement,A Government of Renewal, including the question of seeking arbitration under the Paris Convention in relation to THORP. The committee is continuing to examine all possible avenues remaining open to the Government to remove the serious threat posed by the UK nuclear industry. This is the first comprehensive initiative taken by any Government to date to address the threats caused by Sellafield and other nuclear installations and it illustrates the Government's serious intent to pursue all realistic and effective courses of action to safeguard the Irish people.
While the Government has always been and continues to be committed to legal action against Sellafield if a sustainable case for it can be shown to exist, it cannot initiate such action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence. The Attorney General has advised that any such legal action would have to be based on scientific evidence as to the injurious effects of operations at the Sellafield Plant on Ireland. A member state which is considered by the Commission or another member state to have failed to meet an obligation of the EU Treaty may be brought before the Court of Justice. The ministerial committee, with advice from the Attorney General, is re-examining the question of the compliance with EU law of the Sellafield/THORP Plant. It should be noted, however, that the EU Commission has examined the implications of THORP and issued an official opinion on 30 April 1992 that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from THORP is not liable, either in normal operation or in the case of an accident, to result in radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another member state.
Stop THORP Alliance Dundalk — STAD — is the support group for four Dundalk residents who have initiated legal action against THORP. The decision of the High Court, which established the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear the substantive case brought by the Dundalk residents against British Nuclear Fuels, was welcomed by the Government.
Although Ireland and the Attorney General are named as co-defendants in the substantive case taken by the Dundalk residents, the Government in fact also resisted British Nuclear Fuel's application to have an Order allowing service of the summons out of the State set aside. This is a clear illustration of the Government's commitment to do all in its power to eliminate the threat posed by Sellafield and THORP. Books of Appeal have been lodged on behalf of British Nuclear Fuels and the matter is in the Supreme Court for mention tomorrow, 13 October. I can assure the House that, as in the High Court case, Counsel for the State will support the plaintiffs in resisting this appeal.
Counsel for the plaintiffs filed a motion for discovery of the State's files but this motion has been adjourned on the understanding that the State would make discovery on a voluntary basis by 12 December 1995. My Department and a number of other Government Departments and State agencies are currently engaged in compiling the files relevant to the issues raised by the plaintiffs.
There have been requests that the plaintiffs should be indemnified by the State in respect of their costs of pursuing the proceedings. The request raised some substantial issues and, as was indicated in response to two parliamentary questions on 24 January, it was considered appropriate in the circumstances to await the outcome of the case taken by British Nuclear Fuels before reaching a decision, one way or the other, upon that request. The Attorney General's Office is now considering that matter further but will await the outcome of BNFL's appeal to the Supreme Court before reaching a conclusion.
