I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill is comparatively short and is of a technical nature. It provides for amendments to certain sections of the Radiological Protection Acts, 1991 and 1995, specifically those sections relating to the regulatory and licensing role of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. I wish to refer to the functions of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. As Deputies will be aware, representatives of the institute recently appeared before the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport, and this would have been informative about the institute's activities.
The institute was established in April 1992 under the Radiological Protection Act, 1991, and replaced the Nuclear Energy Board. The main functions of the institute are enshrined in the provisions of the 1991 Act and include providing advice to the Government and the Minister for Public Enterprise and other Government Ministers on matters relating to radiological safety; monitoring developments abroad relating to nuclear installations and radiological safety; monitoring, measuring and assessing radioactivity contamination of the environment including the seas around Ireland; controlling, by way of licence, the custody, use, manufacture, transportation, distribution, exportation and disposal of radioactive substances, irradiating apparatus and other sources of ionising radiation; informing the Irish public on any matters relating to radiological safety and supporting the development and implementation of national plans for nuclear and radiological emergencies.
The institute is responsible for licensing all activities in the State involving ionising radiation. This includes hospitals, dental practices, veterinary surgeons, laboratory instruments, industrial operations, distribution of irradiating equipment, industrial radiography and research laboratories. There are over 1,000 licensees at present. Many of these licensed activities are carried on efficiently, but if not operated to high standards of radiological protection they are potentially hazardous to workers, patients under medical and dental care, and members of the public. The institute has a key role as regulator in ensuring that acceptable standards of practice are maintained.
The amendments proposed in the Bill concern the regulatory activities of the institute currently enshrined in the Radiological Protection Act, 1991. In essence, the Bill makes provision for the strengthening of the licensing powers of the institute relating to the use of X-ray equipment by practitioners and the elaboration of powers to fix licence fees. It also creates new offences to enhance the institute's regulatory role drawing upon the institute's experience since the 1991 Act was enacted.
Section 2 provides for amendments to section 30 of the 1991 Act. Section 30 of the 1991 Act is the main legislative basis for the institute's regulatory functions and essentially provides for the institute to regulate, by licence, the custody, control and use of radioactive substances, nuclear devices or irradiating apparatus. The first main provision in Section 2 of the Bill relates to the institute's power to licence persons for the use of X-ray equipment. Under section 30 of the 1991 Act, the institute is empowered to licence persons for the custody and use of X-ray equipment. However, neither the 1991 Act nor the 1993 order made under it empowers the institute to satisfy itself as to the competence of the licensee to use such equipment. In fact, section 7(2) of the 1991 Act, which was amended by section 26 of the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1995, restricts the institute's role to the supervision and care of the X-ray equipment and to ensuring that the equipment is properly calibrated and maintained. The institute has, in its more recent annual reports, highlighted this narrow focus as a potential cause of concern, particularly in relation to the regulation of chiropractors.
The European Communities (Medical Ionising Radiation) Regulations of 1988, which are enforced by the Minister for Health and Children, set out the requirements relating to the competency of persons engaged in the use of X-ray equipment for medical and dental purposes. In summary, articles 5 and 6 of the 1988 regulations provide that a person cannot carry out a medical or dental treatment involving ionising radiation unless he or she is a doctor or other practitioner or a dentist deemed by the Medical Council or the Dental Council, as the case may be, to have the required competence in terms of radiation protection and radiation techniques. However, chiropractors, unlike doctors or dentists, are not recognised by the Medical Council. At present, an anomalous legislative situation exists whereby the institute can licence a chiropractor for the custody and use of X-ray equipment despite the fact that under the separate 1988 regulations mentioned above, the chiropractor is not entitled to use the equipment as he or she is not recognised by the Medical Council.
Section 2(b) of the Bill will rectify this anomaly. It will amend the 1991 Act to provide that the institute cannot grant a licence for the use of X-ray apparatus, unless the institute is satisfied that the person meets the requirements of articles 5 and 6 of the 1988 regulations. The amendment will also empower the institute to revoke an existing licence where the licensee does not meet the same requirements. It will be the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Children to ensure that the users of such substances, devices or apparatus for these purposes meet the requirements of the 1988 regulations.
The second main amendment in section 2 of the Bill relates to the prescription of licence fees. All of these fee fixing changes will be important to the new regulatory powers of the institute under a EURATOM directive which I will refer to later. The proposed amendment in sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Bill will elaborate on the existing fee fixing powers relating to licences issued by the institute. It is designed to confer maximum flexibility on the Minister so that the institute's licensing administration costs will be recovered in a fair and equitable manner. For example, the institute will be empowered to retain fees or a proportion of fees paid to it in respect of the licensing process in circumstances where the licence applicant does not ultimately qualify for a licence.
Section 3 amends section 40(1) of the 1991 Act by the addition of a provision which will make it an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to make a false statement when applying for a licence under section 30 of that Act. It also makes it an offence for a person not to comply with a condition of a licence pursuant to section 30.
Section 4 amends section 41 of the 1991 Act as amended by section 65 of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act, 1998. The amendments are merely technical amendments to clarify the summary prosecution powers of those relevant Ministers, the institute and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland identified in section 41 of the 1991 Act, as amended, in respect of offences created under section 3 of the Bill.
Council Directive 96/29 of EURATOM which was adopted on 13 May 1996, lays down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against dangers arising from ionising radiation. This directive replaces a previous basic safety standards directive and applies to all practices involving ionising radiation sources. As far as Ireland is concerned, the directive would apply, for example, to hospitals, dental practices, veterinary practices and universities where radiation is used. It will also apply to any industrial activities where radioactive sources would be involved. The directive, unlike previous directives, will cover work activities involving workplace exposure to natural radiation such as radon and cosmic radiation in the case or air crew. The directive lays down a number of obligations for which member states must legislate. These include: the identification of work activities; the introduction of radiation protection measures to monitor, control or reduce exposures to natural sources of radiation; the introduction of radiation protection principles for intervention in cases of radiological emergencies or lasting exposures and; the need to have emergency planning to cover radiological emergencies and accidents. A number of the requirements of the directive are already provided in existing national legislation.
This is an important directive which will profoundly influence radiological protection in member states for a considerable time. It represents a significant step forward in radiation protection. Member states are required to transpose the directive into national legislation not later than 13 May 2000. To meet this deadline my Department has, in the past week, finalised a consultation paper which incorporates a draft order setting out how my Department, in consultation with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, intends to implement the directive. The objective of the consultation paper, which is available to all interested parties, will be to draw upon a wide spectrum of opinion and expertise within the country before finalising the implementing of legislative proposals. For the information of Deputies, copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Dáil Library. It is my intention that the directive will be enshrined in Irish law by an order made under section 30 of the 1991 Act.
Sellafield has been a source of grave concern to successive Governments and to the Irish. The main factors driving the Government's opposition to Sellafield operations is the risk, however remote, of a catastrophic accident, the continued operation of the magnox reactors beyond their design life, the continued reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, the complexity of operations of the Sellafield site, the storage of high level radioactive waste in liquid form on site and the impact of radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea.
Since assuming responsibility for nuclear safety and radiological protection, I have been in frequent contact with the relevant UK Ministers about Sellafield matters. In November 1997, I had my first formal meeting in Dublin with Mr. Michael Meacher, the UK Minister for the Environment, at which I raised the whole range of nuclear safety issues of concern to Ireland. Since then I have been in contact with Mr. Meacher on a number of occasions. I had a further meeting with him in London in February of this year. At the meeting in February I focused on our concerns about the UK Environment Agency's proposed decisions, announced last October, for a variation in BNFL's current radioactive discharges authorisation limit in respect of the Sellafield plant and for the approval of the MOX fuel fabrication plant at Sellafield.
I met Mr. Meacher because the Environment Agency had referred the proposed decisions to UK Ministers for consideration. At the meeting I followed up on previous written submissions on both matters. As to the Sellafield discharge authorisations, my Department's previous views had set out Ireland's concerns about radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea – particularly discharges of the long life radionuclide technetium-99 which have grown significantly since 1994 – and called for the cessation of such discharges. Similarly, my Department's written submissions to the UK Environment Agency had set out our concerns and opposition to the proposed MOX plant.
I had been surprised and disappointed at the UK Environment Agency's draft discharge authorisations, especially given the positive commitments regarding radioactive discharges to the marine environment which emerged from the OSPAR ministerial meeting the previous July in Portugal. At that meeting, a strategy on radioactive discharges was adopted which committed all OSPAR Ministers, including the UK Ministers, to the virtual elimination of such discharges into the sea by the year 2020. In addition, UK Ministers at the same meeting promised to take account of concerns raised by Ireland and other countries about technetium-99 discharges into the Irish Sea.
The agency's proposed decision, while it involved a reduction in the permitted levels of technetium-99 discharges, is totally unacceptable to the Irish Government as the proposed technetium reductions are completely inadequate. I regard the proposed decision as, effectively, a breach of the undertaking entered into by the UK Ministers at the OSPAR ministerial meeting. I reminded Mr. Meacher of the need to honour these commitments speedily. Mr. Meacher informed me that he was fully aware of the strong concerns in Ireland and in the Scandinavian countries about technetium-99 discharge levels and that he would reflect fully on the matter before a final decision was made.
In the course of my discussion with Mr. Meacher, there was a reference to the meeting of the OSPAR radioactive substances group held in Dublin in January. On the agenda of that meeting was the strategy on radioactive substances adopted last July by the OSPAR Ministers.
When I officially opened the Dublin meeting I emphasised the necessity of meeting the objectives of the strategy within the timeframe laid down and in a way which addresses legitimate concerns about the impact of such discharges on sea-based livelihoods and the enjoyment of the amenities of the Irish Sea. The upshot of the Dublin meeting was that the relevant contracting parties are to submit reports to the OSPAR secretariat by mid-September next, setting out how they intend to meet the objectives of the strategy and their timeframe. These reports will then be examined and discussed by a small group made up of a number of contracting parties with a view to submitting proposals to the next meeting of the OSPAR radioactive substances group in January 2000. Ireland is participating in this small select group and will use this opportunity to ensure that the proposals put forward by the contracting parties will be aimed at achieving the strategy objectives. A key OSPAR milestone will be the meeting of the Commission in mid-2000 when the implementation strategy will be discussed. I hope that early reductions in Sellafield discharges will form part of those discussions.
I also drew Mr. Meacher's attention to the Irish Government's total opposition to the UK Environment Agency's draft decision to give the go-ahead to the MOX plant. I requested that Ireland's concerns about this project, set out in two earlier separate submissions to the Environment Agency, should be given careful consideration by UK Ministers. Mr. Meacher assured me that Ireland's views would be borne in mind in the decision making process.
I have also been in contact with the UK Minister of State for Science and Technology, Mr. John Battle, specifically concerning the high level liquid waste storage arrangements at Sellafield. We are concerned about the storage of such waste in liquid form and I am anxious to see an acceleration by BNFL of its waste vitrification process, whereby this waste would be converted to glass. I want ot see the backlog of waste being vitrified much earlier than the target date of 2015 set by BNFL.
Mr. Battle has assured me of the safety aspects of the existing waste storage arrangements and of the UK's intention to vitrify the waste as soon as practicable. Vitrification is the optimum approach to such waste. However, I consider the target date of 2015 to clear the waste backlog to be too far in the future.
I have asked Mr. Battle to urge BNFL to release to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland relevant technical information on the waste storage arrangements to enable the institute to form its own judgment as to the risks involved. The institute will meet BNFL at Sellafield this week to discuss the matter further. Irrespective of the outcome of such contacts, I remain adamant that the vitrification process should be accelerated. I will return to the matter again when Mr. Battle meets me in Dublin on 21 May.
In addition to my direct contact with my UK ministerial counterparts, there is ongoing contact between officials of my Department and the institute and their UK counterparts and also formal contact through the Ireland-UK contact group. This group comprises officials of my Department and the institute and officials of relevant UK Departments and meets twice a year to discuss radioactivity and nuclear matters. Meetings of the group provide further opportunities for pursuing Ireland's concerns about Sellafield and related matters.
Ireland's concerns about Sellafield and the UK nuclear industry are raised at every opportunity in EU and international fora, including meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD and meetings held under the umbrella of the Oslo-Paris Convention on marine pollution.
Apart from the more recent positive development which emerged from the OSPAR ministerial meeting last July in regard to radioactive discharges, there have been other positive developments on the international front on nuclear safety generally. The convention on nuclear safety, which came into force in 1996, is aimed at ensuring land-based civil nuclear installations are safe and well regulated and at promoting a high level of nuclear safety worldwide.
The convention provides for a peer review process which enables contracting parties to assess country reports on how contracting parties are complying with the convention. In the view of the Irish delegation, the first peer review meeting, which was held within the past two weeks at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, proved successful and was conducted in a good atmosphere. It appeared that many countries had responded to the built-in encouragement of the exchange of information and the self-assessment principles of the convention and there was evidence that some had examined their regulatory framework to ensure it was in line with the convention's provisions. There was also a demonstration of greater recourse to external independent assessments of nuclear plant operators.
In the words of the summary report of the proceedings, the discussions were "open and constructive". There was a reasonable opportunity to discuss national reports submitted by countries party to the convention. In Ireland's case, the opportunity was taken to raise concerns on issues relating to the UK report. Not surprisingly, the issues discussed included the ageing Magnox reactors and the regulatory policies of the UK authorities.
The nuclear safety convention will enhance nuclear safety worldwide and represents the type of significant international commitment needed to ensure the highest standards of safety which Ireland and other non-nuclear states have been endeavouring to establish for many years.
Various research studies have concluded that radon gas may be a contributory factor in increasing the risk of lung cancer in the home. In 1992, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland initiated a national survey to measure radon concentrations in domestic dwellings. This has been completed in respect of 24 counties and the results have been published. The results for the remaining two counties, Galway and Mayo, are being analysed and will be published shortly. Of the almost 12,000 houses measured to date, some 1,100 have been identified as having radon measurements in excess of the national reference level of 200 becquerels per cubic metre. This is a level above which the institute would recommend that radon remediation works be undertaken by the householder. When the survey is completed the institute intends producing a map showing the areas most affected by radon.
The Government is making every effort to address the problem of high radon concentrations in dwellings. The Department of the Environment and Local Government published revised technical guidance documents relating to the building regulations incorporating explicit requirements for radon preventive measures in the construction of new dwellings from 1 July 1998. More elaborate radon protection measures are specified for new houses in the high radon areas identified in the institute's survey. At the request of the Minister for Education and Science, the institute has recently initiated a comprehensive nationwide radon measurement survey of schools to ensure any problems with radon are identified. The EU basic safety standards directive includes specific provisions relating to exposure to natural radiation sources and, in this context, the exposure of workers and members of the public to radon in the workplace is specifically addressed.
The Government is firmly committed to its policy of nuclear safety and radiological protection and to its campaign against Sellafield. Last year it established the ministerial committee on nuclear safety. The committee, which I chair, comprises the Ministers of State at the Departments of the Marine and Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, Health and Children, and the Environment and Local Government. The office of the Attorney General, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and officials of the Departments mentioned are also on the committee. The objective of the committee, whose terms of reference are broad and encompass nuclear and radiological safety issues and the campaign against Sellafield, is to co-ordinate nuclear safety policy; complement the work of the Departments and agencies involved in developing and implementing radiological protection policy, and give added impetus to the Government's efforts in the area of nuclear safety and radiation protection. The committee has met on five occasions since its establishment.
The national emergency plan for nuclear accidents is designed to provide a rapid and effective response to accidents involving the release, or potential release, of radioactive substances into the environment which could give rise to radiation exposure. The plan outlines the measures to assess and mitigate the effects of nuclear accidents which occur in the United Kingdom or elsewhere and which might pose a radiological hazard to Ireland. As Minister of State with responsibility for nuclear safety matters, I am responsible for the plan and for ensuring the co-ordination of the respective responsibilities and functions of relevant Departments, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and local authorities. Following a simulated nuclear emergency exercise in November 1996, in which Ireland participated, a fundamental review of the plan was undertaken by my Department and the institute in consultation with other relevant Departments.
Arising from the review, a number of procedural and practical improvements were identified and these have now been approved by the Government. They include the establishment of a committee of Ministers from appropriate Departments which would give policy direction on recommended counter measures, as necessary; the reinforcement of the co-ordinating role of the existing emergency response co-ordination committee which comprises representatives from key Departments and agencies; the establishment of a consultative committee comprising senior officials of relevant Departments and agencies to exchange views on the plan, including its organisation and testing, and to make decisions on necessary actions relevant to their respective areas; an upgrading of the accommodation, communications equipment and public information ser vices within the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland.
The new arrangements also provide for the exploration of the possibilities for North-South co-operation in the context of an accident or emergency affecting, or potentially affecting, the island as a whole. It is my intention to organise a test of the new emergency arrangements later this year or early next year and to publish the updated plan.
On the County Louth residents' legal action against British Nuclear Fuels, as the House is aware, the Government approved an offer of financial assistance of £350,000 to the residents towards the cost of research work to be undertaken by them. This offer was made despite the fact that the State is a co-defendant in the residents' action. A number of payments have been made to the residents on foot of this offer. The Government also approved in December 1997 a package of assistance relating to defined areas of work by the residents' legal team in assessing research work. This package was outlined by me to the residents that same month. However, the residents have yet to confirm that they are in a position to accept this offer.
I emphasise that, despite the fact that the State remains a co-defendant in this case, the Government has, at all times, endeavoured to be as helpful and co-operative as possible to the residents. The commitment of not insignificant resources by the Government is indicative of its willingness in this regard.
The Government will keep under review the question of taking legal action against BNFL in respect of the risk to Ireland from Sellafield. However, litigation against Sellafield raises many complex technical and legal issues. The Government will continue to draw on the best scientific and legal advice before deciding on litigation of such a challenging nature.
I have endeavoured to paint a picture of the Government's efforts to promote nuclear safety and radiological protection and the actions being taken by the Government to protect citizens from the environmental hazards of nuclear power activities in the UK and elsewhere. Over the past ten years or so, the tide of public opinion in Europe has moved against nuclear power. Ireland, through successive Governments, has played a consistent role in this process and, as far as this Government is concerned, will continue to play a leading role in highlighting the risks associated with the nuclear energy industry and ancillary activities. I commend the Bill to the House.
