asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if he is aware of the recently published reports of the United States nuclear energy regulatory bodies revising in very considerable measure their previous endorsement of the findings of the Rasmussen Report (details supplied) concerning nuclear reactor safety; and if, in the light of these new major reservations and the extent to which the Government have hitherto accepted the assertions of this report, the Government will now defer any decision to authorise the ESB to proceed with the first stage of the construction of a nuclear power station at Carnsore Point, County Wexford, pending a full public inquiry.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Nuclear Power Station.
13.
I am informed by the Nuclear Energy Board that there is a mistaken belief that the Reactor Safety Study Report generally known as the "Rasmussen Report" has been disowned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the USA. The board add that the US Risk Assessment Review Group, while concluding that the Executive Summary (a non-technical synopsis) of the Rasmussen Report was not representative of the report itself and should not be so used, have in effect substantially endorsed the bulk of the Rasmussen Report.
I have already made it clear in this House and elsewhere on several occasions that I have no objection in principle to an inquiry into the nuclear project provided such inquiry can serve some useful purpose. The Deputy is, of course, aware that the present Government have not taken any decision as yet to proceed with construction of a nuclear station as approved in principle in 1973 by the last Government and in their consideration of this issue the Government will have regard, inter alia, to the further relevant views of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Rasmussen Report.
In view of the very heavy reliance which the Minister and his Department placed on this report does he now regard it as appropriate that there should be a public inquiry or an inquiry sponsored by the Minister? Is there any prospect of an early decision by the Government in relation to the matters he has been referring to?
I expect that there will be consideration by the Government and a decision by them in relation to the matter very shortly.
Perhaps the Minister might include the prospect of an inquiry, if necessary sponsored by the nuclear board, the ESB or by the Minister. Such an inquiry would be of major benefit to a rational long-term decision on the matter.
One would envisage the likelihood of a very considerable inquiry on the appeal either by the objectors or the applicants against the granting or refusal, as the case may be, of planning permission by the local authority.
Surely the Minister would agree that a planning appeal cannot, and it would be quite illegal for it to attempt to, discuss the very issues which are uppermost in the minds of many people? A planning appeal can only discuss planning issues and cannot discuss the very important economic dimensions of this problem. It would not be relevant.
Question No. 14.
The economic considerations seem to me to be matters of judgment by the Government of the day. The Government of the day in 1973 exercised their judgment in that regard. It appears to me that if the economics of this situation and the general energy supply situation in the world at that time indicated the decision which was taken, those considerations are a great deal stronger five-and-a-half years later. The conclusions that could be drawn from them appear to be rather stronger than they would have been in 1973.
Would the Minister agree that the economic cost of constructing a nuclear power station has equally escalated and that a great deal of thought should be given to the economic cost-benefit analysis of such a proposition? Would the Minister particularly agree that it is entirely inappropriate that Wexford County Council and An Bord Pleanála should be the deciding bodies in relation to this major project?
I want to point out to Deputies that because there is a question regarding nuclear energy on the Order Paper that does not permit every possible question to be asked in relation to it. The question related to an American report and we are getting far away from it now.
It was the Minister himself who raised the question of a planning appeal.
The Minister should not widen the issue.
The Minister of State, Deputy Burke, said much the same thing about six months ago. Will the Minister concede that not only the economic issues that the Government must decide upon but also the energy dimensions and whether this is the right solution to our energy problems would be quite outside the scope of a planning appeal?
Question No. 14 relates to the same question.
14.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if the Government have or have not, decided to proceed with the provision of a nuclear power station.
On 28 November 1973 the previous Government approved in principle the provision of a nuclear power station. That decision still stands, although its implementation was deferred in October 1975 by the ESB because of the depressed state of electricity demand at that time.
However, the Government will very shortly review the earlier decision with a view to deciding whether it should be processed further. A final decision to go ahead with a nuclear project would not fall to be taken for at least a further two years.
Would the Minister be inclined to tell the Dáil that it could rely on the statement of the situation contained in the White Paper which is only now three weeks old? May we rely on what the White Paper says on this subject in paragraph 451, namely that serious examination is being given to the feasibility of and need for a nuclear energy station?
The Deputy can rely on it. I would draw the attention of the Deputy and the House to the fact that some months ago, without any question being raised either in this House or outside it, I announced my approval of a project by the ESB to build an enormous coal station on the Shannon Estuary. The capital cost of it, at current prices, is estimated at £350 million. Its total cost eventually will probably exceed £400 million; it may even approach half-a-billion pounds. The order of magnitude of which we speak there is not dissimilar in general terms to the order of magnitude of capital investment that would be covered by the project in this question. It is remarkable that this enormous commitment of public funds in relation to County Clare has raised no questions at all. The very sort of economic consideration which Deputies and others put forward are equally valid to the question of that station.
Of course that is so. But a coal station has a much shorter life. It does not have to be concreted over and guarded for the next thousand years. The Minister has just said that the statement in the White Paper of three weeks old is accurate and nothing more is being done than an examination of the feasibility of this project. Would the Minister undertake to reconcile that with the statement in the Government's Green Paper on energy which is only about six months old and which clearly says that we are going to need both coal fired and nuclear plants and that to opt for one to the exclusion of the other would be merely exchanging our existing dependence on imported oil for an equally heavy dependence on another form of energy? Are these two statements of official Government policy reconcilable?
They are reconcilable.
It would take Mr. de Valera to do that job.