I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
When a method of producing self-sustaining nuclear fission was first achieved during the course of the Second World War its first application was to produce a devastating weapon of war. Since then, progress in nuclear science and technology has made possible some revolutionary contributions to the material and humanitarian advancement of the world. The most obvious example of this progress is in the development of nuclear power plants which are now in many countries providing a safe and reliable method of producing electric power in competition with traditional methods. Research into nuclear power continues at a very intensive rate throughout the world with the present emphasis on fission reactors fueled with natural fissile material generally in an enriched form. The next development will be the production of commercial breeder reactors utilising as fuel virtually inexhaustible supplies of fertile material such as uranium 238 or thorium. Further ahead is a prospect of controlled fusion which could give access to the potential energy in the heavy hydrogen in the oceans of the world.
Apart from the production of power, nuclear science has made progress in a multitude of beneficial applications based on radioisotopes. These have been of great value in research, in medical diagnosis and treatment, in food preservation, in various agricultural uses, in quality control in industry and in the development of new products generally. It can be said that nuclear science has contributed and will continue to contribute materially to the alleviation of suffering and hardship and in improving the lot of mankind generally. Nuclear science has, therefore, a tremendous potential for good as well as for evil and the efforts of various international bodies have been directed more and more in recent years towards increasing the peaceful uses of atomic energy while ensuring the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. I am glad to say that different Ministers for Foreign Affairs of this country have taken an active part in these international activities. The bringing into force in the past year of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was a successful outcome to a resolution pioneered by Ireland at the United Nations Assembly in 1961.
The development of nuclear power reactors is continually improving. In recent times the more advanced countries have been able to commission nuclear reactors competitive in price with power stations based on the traditional fossil fuels—coal and fuel oil. Nuclear power stations have very high capital costs with relatively low fuel costs. The capital cost per unit of output decreases with overall size and hence the larger sized units offer the best competitive performance as compared with oil fired units.
Experience in the electricity industry shows, however, that it is wiser not to have too much generating capacity, say not more than about 10 per cent of the peak load, concentrated in a single generating unit because of the effect of a breakdown in a large unit. Normally an electricity supply company increase their generating unit size in steps as their load develops taking advantage of the experience already gained by larger supply companies in the size ranges chosen. Thus the ESB at present operate with 60 megawatt units as the largest size in a system with total capacity of about 1,400 megawatts. The demand for electricity has been growing for some years at the rate of 10 per cent to 11 per cent a year so that it is necessary to double generating capacity every seven or eight years bringing the probable capacity at the end of this decade to about 3,000 megawatts. With this expansion, the capacity of the board's system to accommodate larger units than the present maximum of 60 megawatts will increase. The board will commission the first 120 megawatt unit this year and the first 250 megawatt unit in 1975. The most economical nuclear generating stations being planned at present are in the range of 1,000 to 1,200 megawatts and upwards and, of course, there can be no question of commissioning any individual unit of this size in Ireland for many years to come. Technical progress in recent years, however, is succeeding in reducing the size of a nuclear plant which can compete with traditional generating methods. I am aware that some smaller countries are now commissioning nuclear plants in the 350-500 megawatt region and they claim that these smaller plants are both economic and competitive.
With such small nuclear plants in operation and with the board's growing capability to accommodate larger units in their generating system the time has now come for us in Ireland to plan the commissioning of a medium-size nuclear generating station which, on the one hand, will not be unduly large in relation to total generating capacity and, on the other hand, will be sufficiently efficient to compete with oil-fired plants.
From a broad security aspect also it is desirable that the ESB should diversify their fuel sources, since at present just over 50 per cent of total electricity production in Ireland is based on fuel oil and, without diversification, this proportion could grow to 80 per cent or so before the end of this decade. Of course, the fuel for a nuclear station will have to be procured from abroad but we can claim that diversification by way of nuclear power stations will add to the security of the electricity supply.
Deputies are aware that there is an inter-connection between our ESB system and the Northern Ireland system. This connection allows a saving in installed capacity on both systems while maintaining the same standard of security. As far as a nuclear plant is concerned the existence of this inter-connection will allow the individual size of a generating unit to be increased, since the risk of losing one of the units can be covered by the insurance provided by inter-connection.
On a power system the spinning reserve, that is, the spare generating capacity available immediately it is required, must at all times be capable of compensating for the loss of the largest unit on load. The size of the nuclear station we can build in relation to our total capacity would, therefore, require that running cover would have to be spread over the two systems both north and south as a precaution against a breakdown in the station. This presupposes the existence of detailed planning of running schedules by both authorities on a complementary basis. It would be impossible for either north or south to proceed with the establishment of such a station without an understanding with its neighbour. This type of understanding has already evolved arising from the existence of the interconnection. Each party is now fully aware of the plans of the other in the matter of generation programmes.
I wish to make it clear to the House that no decision has been taken to build a nuclear station. The ESB have for some years past been training engineers in nuclear work and they are at present engaged in a detailed examination of the technical, economic, social and financial problems connected with the installation and operation of a nuclear station. All aspects of the project will require most careful consideration by the board; and the advice of the new Nuclear Energy Board will be required before the Government can take a decision. In particular, the provision of capital funds to finance the station may present difficulties.
If in due course, a decision is taken to build a station, the siting of such a station will be a matter to be determined primarily by technical criteria such as the availability at the site of very large amounts of cooling water and its proximity to the electrical system load centres. The site should also have suitable foundations and geological characteristics and should be located where the station will cause a minimum disturbance to local amenities and ecology. When the suitability of the various sites has been assessed, a decision on the site to be chosen will be reached in the light of the expert advice of the Electricity Supply Board and the new Nuclear Energy Board.
The establishment of an Irish Nuclear Energy Board has been under consideration at different times. The Atomic Energy Committee report published in May, 1958, and presented to the Oireachtas, suggested that an atomic energy board should be established with responsibility for the operation of a research reactor and for other matters pertaining to the development of nuclear energy. In the circumstances of the time, however the Government felt that there were very few advantages to be gained by setting up the suggested board and acquiring a training reactor. A further committee, the members of which were drawn from the universities, the Electricity Supply Board, the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, An Foras Forbartha and various interested Government Departments reported in 1966 in regard to the setting up of a nuclear energy board and, in particular, in relation to the composition and functions of such a board. The recommendations of this committee are incorporated in the Bill now before the House.
It is proposed that the primary functions of the board should be that of keeping themselves informed of developments in nuclear energy and associated matters with particular reference to the implications for the State of such developments, and to act as a competent source of advice for the Government and Ministers of State. Particular functions being given to the board, as set out in section 5 (1) of the Bill, include advising the Government or any scientific body interested in nuclear science on the acquisition of nuclear reactors or other radioactive devices for training or research purposes and, if such reactors or devices are acquired, on all aspects of their location, installation, operation and supervision. The board will also offer similar advice on proposals for the construction of nuclear power stations. In addition, they may prepare draft safety codes and regulations dealing with fissile fuel, radioactive substances and devices and irradiating apparatus taking into account relevant standards recommended by international bodies dealing with nuclear energy and they can, if requested by me, ensure compliance with any such safety codes or regulations. The board may offer advice regarding representation of the State on international bodies dealing with nuclear energy and may maintain such direct relations with such bodies as may be agreed. A particular function of the board will be to promote knowledge, proficiency and research in nuclear science and technology and to act as an agency for the collection and dissemination of information on matters relating to nuclear science.
At this stage it is not proposed to assign regulatory functions directly to the board but provision is being made for the assignment from time to time of specific functions agreed with the particular Minister concerned. During the debate in the Seanad, fears were expressed that in practice this would mean that Ministers with statutory powers of control over radioactive materials would continue to exercise such powers to the detriment of the status of the board. A number of Senators felt very strongly on this point and contended that the opportunity provided by the enactment of this Bill should be taken to centralise all such controls in the board. My following remarks are intended to reassure the House on this point.
At present control over radioactive substances, irradiating apparatus and the safe disposal of radioactive waste products is vested in the Minister for Health under the Health Act, 1953. The Minister for Labour has also, under the Factories Act, 1955, powers of control over radioactive substances and apparatus in so far as these constitute a risk to factory workers. There is a duality of functions here between the two Ministers which will be further complicated by the fact that wide powers of control over radioactive materials and apparatus are being vested in me under section 6 of the Bill for eventual assignment to the Board. The intention of the Bill as introduced in the Seanad was to leave the position open so that the board, when set up, would assist in rationalising the situation. However, in view of the opinions expressed in the Seanad I have amended the Bill to enhance the independent position of the board and to facilitate the eventual transfer to them of the control of radioactive substances and irradiating apparatus.
Under the Bill as amended the board will not be confined to offering their advice on nuclear matters in response to requests by the Government or Ministers of State for such advice, as was originally envisaged. They will instead be able to offer advice irrespective of such requests and not alone to the Government or Ministers of State but also to interested scientific groups. They can also prepare safety codes on their own initiative. Of more significance, however, is the fact that section 5 (2) of the Bill, which is the section under which I can assign functions to the board, has been revised to enable me to require the board to ensure compliance with any safety regulations under the Health Act, 1953 or the Factories Act, 1955 dealing with the use of such radioactive substances or devices. Moreover, these Acts are being amended by this Bill to enable the enforcement of such regulations to be effected by officers of the Nuclear Energy Board. The assumption by the board of such responsibilities must, however, be gradual. The Minister for Labour has, I understand, prepared regulations, which are likely to be made shortly, to protect factory workers from excessive radiation and he has had personnel trained in the use of equipment for enforcing these regulations. The Minister for Labour will, therefore, be able shortly to exercise a fair measure of control over dangerous emissions of radiation in factories. The board, on the other hand, even with the best will in the world, would obviously take some time before they would be in a position to operate controls of this kind. Briefly, the situation is that we are not yet able to centralise control of nuclear matters in the board but the mechanism whereby this can be done as required, is being provided by this Bill.
It is intended that the board shall consist of not more than seven part-time members to be appointed for periods of office not exceeding five years. The board will appoint their own staff. I envisage that the initial staff will be fairly limited in number but as developments take place and additional functions are assigned to the board from time to time that the staff will be expanded to keep pace with requirements. It is proposed that the board will be given an annual grant towards their expenses. The board will be required to submit an annual report which will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
What it is sought to achieve in this Bill, therefore, is to establish a board which will be a source of competent advice particularly for the Government and Ministers of State on all matters arising out of nuclear sciences and which will be given additional executive functions as required from time to time within the limits set by the Bill.
It has been the experience in many other countries in dealing with nuclear control that the passage of time makes necessary the introduction of amending legislation and I have little doubt but that when the board have had some years of experience they also will be recommending the introduction of new control measures. At some future stage then it will be necessary for us to amend and expand the provisions set out in this Bill.
The Bill has been carefully scrutinised in the Seanad and a number of suggestions were made to improve it in its legal and technical aspects. I was happy to introduce the necessary amendments to meet these suggestions. The Seanad has expressed itself as quite pleased with the Bill as it now stands and I can confidently recommend it to the House.