Deputy Allen applied for permission this morning to raise this matter on the Adjournment and Deputy Gerard Brady applied at 3.30 p.m. for permission to raise the same matter. By agreement, permission has been given to both Deputies to raise the matter and they have agreed to divide the time.
Adjournment Debate. - Nuclear Waste Disposal.
Is there a breakdown in communications between the backbenchers on the Government side and their Minister? Surely the Deputy has a facility to walk into the Minister's office to discuss matters with him. It was always a tradition in this House that Opposition Deputies, who do not have access to Ministers, raise matters on the Adjournment.
There is nothing in Standing Orders to give force to what Deputy Molloy said, Deputy Allen, please.
Having tried for five weeks to raise this matter, it is very hard to accept the play-acting of Deputy Molloy. I should like to thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise the subject although I have only nine minutes in which to do so.
The United States of America first disposed of nuclear waste in 1946, followed closely by Britain in 1949 and afterwards by at least seven other countries. However, by the early seventies only the United Kingdom, Belgium, Switzerland and Holland were still dumping at sea. Holland have recently announced that they will no longer continue to dump at sea and Britain are now dumping 90 per cent of the total amount dumped at sea either dumping from a ship or from land-based sources. They still remain the major exponent of the practice owing to their numerous power installations, weapon manufacture facilities and reprocessing ambitions at Windscale.
The first generation of nuclear reactors are now approaching the end of their life span and will have to be disposed of shortly. Meanwhile, over the last few years a large and wide ranging body of critical analysis has cast serious doubt on the wisdom of continuing the practice of sea disposal because of the exposure to ocean currents and the fear that nuclear particles can ultimately enter the food chain. There is definite scientific evidence available to indicate that the operation at present taking place in the North Atlantic is dangerous and I should like to refer the Minister to a publication prepared by W. Jackson Davis, Professor of Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Calfornia, entitled The Valuation of Oceanic Radioactive Dumping Programmes. This paper has raised many serious questions and I am satisfied that the British Government are in contravention of the London Dumping Convention, 1972, on the prevention of pollution of the seas from ships. At that convention it was agreed that safety factors involved in dumping be examined and that a closer monitoring of the dumping sites should take place. To date, the British nuclear industry have refused to monitor the site off the south-west coast of Ireland; they have not investigated fully the possibility of using land-based alternative sites and there has been no detailed environmental assessment of the effects of dumping.
I am pleased at the stance taken by our Government at the London Dumping Convention. A number of concerned and interested parties were surprised and gratified at Ireland's stand when we supported a Spanish resolution the purpose of which is to bring pressure on those countries, which are at present dumping to discontinue the practice pending the report of the expert group on the scientific implications of the dumping. Disappointingly, this resolution was not binding and the British Government still persist in their dumping operations.
It is hard to obtain accurate information but I have been reliably informed that Britain commenced a new programme of nuclear waste dumping this week; that they commenced loading nuclear waste at Sharpness on the Bristol Channel on 4 July; that dumping will commence on 11 July and will be completed by 16 July; that Britain will be dumping 50 per cent more nuclear waste this year than the total amount dumped in 1982 and that they have re-converted their main dumping vessel Atlantic Fisher to allow nuclear waste to be disposed of directly through the hull.
Debate here is often sterile and, at times, fruitless. However, I ask the Minister to make a substantial contribution if he or any Government Department have made any approaches to Britain on this new dumping programme. I should like to remind him that he is entitled to do so in accordance with the Paris and London conventions.
I have already mentioned the London Convention. I should like to deal now with the Paris Convention which was held recently in Berlin and which discussed the question of the dumping of nuclear waste from land-based sources. I tabled a question in May and I was obliged, because of the backlog of answers, to seek a written reply, which I received on 30 June, dealing with the recent Paris Convention. In his reply, the Minister said that a full report on the outcome of the Paris Convention would be circulated by the secretariat in about a month's time. However, the Minister indicated that our representatives requested the Commission to initiate further scientific studies with the object of determining more precisely the measures to be adopted to deal with radioactive discharges. He indicated that the Commission decided to refer specific questions relating to such discharges to the Nuclear Energy Agency for further consideration. I find this decision unsatisfactory as sufficient information is available and positive action is now needed. I was also amazed and disappointed to read in the Minister's reply that no bilateral discussions had taken place between the Irish and UK Governments on the question of dumping nuclear waste from land-based sources.
I urge the Minister here tonight to ask the Minister for the Environment to immediately open discussions with Britain on the overall problem. Britain must realise that the oceans belong to everyone and must be protected from depredation. Britain no longer rules the waves and should be reminded of this. Britain, in continuing the dumping of nuclear waste in the Atlantic and in continuing the discharge of nuclear waste from Windscale into the Irish Sea, is acting totally irresponsibly, especially in view of a report published in April 1983 called The Impact of Nuclear Waste Disposals to the Marine Environment. That report states that most of the high-risk category people are coastal fishermen and some of the pollution affects people in Ireland and northern Europe who have no benefit from Windscale.
Another report published in 1978 called The International Commission for Radiological Protection estimates that the 1978 discharge from Windscale led to three cancer deaths, three non-fatal cancers and, perhaps, further genetic defects. Other estimates indicate higher fatalities. This problem is a serious international one affecting every country, and it has not been aired adequately by this House. I am appealing to the Minister to give a full debate to this in the new session. However, I feel before we can resolve this problem with Britain we must also resolve our own problems concerning the disposal of toxic waste. I know Britain is facilitating us with this at present. Until such time as we put our own house in order in relation to toxic waste I feel we have compromised and cannot take a firm stand with Britain.
I would like to register the strongest protest I can at the manner in which this matter has been raised in the House. Perhaps it is symptomatic of the total lack of concern about such a grave matter and, indeed, the apathy and confusion that exists even in the House and in several Departments. It was like going from Billy to Jack to try to find out which Department were prepared to deal with the problem. I was told the Departments of Transport, Environment, Energy, Foreign Affairs, and nobody seemed to know. It is pathetic to say the least of it.
I would like to state emphically that the particular issue which I raised for the fourth and now for the fifth time, is the nation's lack of preparedness to deal with an accident caused by radioactive fallout or maritime pollution. It was not on the same line as I have been grouped in with here this evening when I have to try to make a hurried statement within six or seven minutes. We realise that, being an island, this country is susceptible to maritime pollution. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that at present, literally within 115 miles from where we are debating this important issue tonight, is a nuclear cesspit, a nuclear discharge going on continually into the Irish Sea, which now has become the most radioactive polluted sea in Europe. It is beyond me that we could devote time and energy to the pollution of our beaches earlier today and not attach significance to major contamination of this kind.
I would like to put directly to the Minister tonight the action that can be taken in the case of a calamity. We have no programme to cope with an emergency. I received a totally inadequate reply to Question No. 737 from the Minister for Defence last Tuesday in relation to a radioactive calamity in this country, admitting that the monitoring equipment is not suitable or updated to cope with the problem. We have got to think seriously about fallout shelters. In European countries it is obligatory that new buildings are equipped with fallout shelters which can be used as car parks. This is the type of action which should be taken in our cities. One accident with a ship on its way to Windscale or a dust explosion with the wind carrying nuclear activity over the country and we are inadequately able to cope with it. The first step that should be taken is to cope with something like that.
The second step is to increase public awareness to the problem. People do not realise when they are bathing in the Irish Sea, that they are bathing in radioactive waters. The Government should create a public awareness and educational programmes should be undertaken in schools. We should also have an early warning system. Our monitoring information should be adequate. What happened in this House over the last few days is an indication of the absolute confusion in this regard. Atmospheric discharge is controversial enough but dumping and direct pollution into the sea is a total disregard to public health. It is very necessary that the Government take immediate steps to do something about this. I would like, if the Chair would remind me in time so that Deputy Durkan can make his two minutes contribution.
There is a nuclear dustbin on our door step where the cancer producing plutonium is being discharged right into the Irish Sea, which is a shallow sea. There is whispering about the contamination of fish in the Irish Sea not to talk about the cancer effect this can have on the people. Serious accidents occurred in 1976, 1978 and 1981. What will we do if there is an emergency? Will we run around in confusion without any balanced programme put before the nation? We are totally oblivious at the moment of what is actually happening in the seas around the country. The fact that this ship is about to discharge its nuclear dumping into, I am sure the Minister will say, a designated area of the Irish Sea — we often hear that term — 500 miles off the south west coast is totally unsatisfactory, a ship which will sneak out and drop its deadly waste within the ship itself not over the side.
If the Deputy wishes to give Deputy Durkan two minutes he has about two minutes left.
That type of action is completely unsatisfactory. There is a great lot I would like to say about this important subject. Because this problem is so close to us and the effects of this dumping are so serious, that the Government should take immediate steps to alert the public of the risks, to alert the public that our seas are contaminated, to take the matter up in the EEC, to register our protest there. Radioactivity levels in our waters are above EEC accepted levels at the moment.
That is not correct.
The Minister will have plenty of time to argue as to whether it is correct and I am quite sure he will be merely reading out facts and figures from bulletins and so on.
The Deputy is creating hysteria.
I am not here at 12.20 a.m. creating hysteria and I resent the Minister saying that. I am trying to create public awareness of it. Unless it is focused into the public mind how are they to know about it? Can this situation continue and be glossed over so that the public will be lulled into a feeling of security? The Minister knows all too well that cancer can result and is resulting from contamination of this kind. I will give him all the medical facts that he might need to substantiate that. They are all chronicled. In summary——
I am not going to call Deputy Durkan.
The Ceann Comhairle has the order of the House. If he directs me to sit down I will.
I will give Deputy Brady one minute and then I will call the Minister.
I would like the Minister to take four steps: (1) create public awareness about the urgency of contamination in our seas and in the Irish Sea in particular; (2) on the question of fallout to set about, with the Minister for the Environment, a programme of nuclear fallout shelters for the protection of citizens; (3) institute an early warning system; (4) provide an updated monitoring system. The Minister will know from the reply of his colleague, the Minister for Defence, that the monitoring system has become obsolete.
If the Minister wants to give way to Deputy Durkan that is his business.
I would like to express my support for the last two speakers in relation to the dumping of nuclear waste on the seas, whether national or international waters. I ask the Minister to put the onus of proof that these materials are not dangerous and that the canisters being used are indestructible on those who are carrying out the dumping. Canisters containing material and dumped at sea cannot be guaranteed to be totally and absolutely indestructible. I ask the Minister also to try to ensure that any government with whom this country has diplomatic relations are fully aware of the possible danger to both human and marine life and fish stock generally if that procedure is allowed to continue.
The Government have been notified by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD that the UK authorities propose to carry out a sea-dumping operation in the North East Atlantic dumpsite in the next week or so.
The disposal of all types of waste in international waters is governed by the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, drawn up at a Conference in London in 1972. The Convention was ratified by this country in February 1982 following the enactment by the Oireachtas of the Dumping at Sea Act, 1981. The Convention prohibits, inter alia, the dumping of high level radioactive wastes but permits the dumping of low level radioactive waste on stringent conditions based on recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency and subject to licensing by the competent authority of the country undertaking the dumping.
The dumping of low radioactive wastes in the Atlantic Ocean is subject to further control by the provisions of a multilateral consultation and surveillance mechanism established in 1977 and operated through the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Some 18 countries, including Ireland, are participating in the mechanism to ensure that any dumping is done in a safe manner and is subject to international control and inspection. An officer of the Irish Nuclear Energy Board acted as inspector at the dumpings in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1982.
The dumping site is 740 kilometres south-west of Mizen Head, County Cork, and is approximately equidistant from Ireland, Spain, France and Britain. It has an average depth of 4,400 metres and is well clear of shipping lanes, undersea cables, fishing grounds and known currents which approach our coasts.
The material being dumped by Britain which is of a low level of radioactivity is packaged in metal drums and concrete containers prior to the dumping operation. The quantity being dumped is greater than the amounts disposed of by Britain in 1982 but the amount remains well below the agreed limits adopted by the Nuclear Energy Agency.
At the recent London Dumping Convention in February 1983 a resolution was adopted by the majority of the signatories to the Convention calling for a two-year moratorium on dumping to analyse the effects of dumping at sea of radioactive waste material. Ireland supported this resolution. Unfortunately, this resolution does not have binding effect and the UK authorities are not obliged to cease dumping operations.
I would like to assure the Deputy that Ireland is opposed in principle to dumping and desires an end to this practice as soon as is practicable. As the Deputy will appreciate, Ireland has no control over international waters. The London Dumping Convention which I have already referred to is considered to be the most satisfactory arrangement available at present for the control of dumping in international waters. The alternative to the present arrangements is that the UK could be free to dump its waste indiscriminately and this country would be in no position to prevent such activities except within the territorial seas of the State. Successive Governments have been advised by our own Nuclear Energy Board on a continuing basis that studies which have been carried out by international experts have concluded that if the amounts of radioactivity currently discharged in the Atlantic remain at present levels in the future they will have no harmful effects on man or his environment.
I would like to add that the UK authorities have drawn up a contingency plan in case the planned dumping operation goes wrong. Our own Civil Defence have drawn up a programme for dealing with nuclear fallout in conjunction with the Department of Defence. This matter was raised by Deputy Brady. All nuclear power stations are run under extremely secure regulations governing safety matters. I am not aware of any deaths which can be attributed 100 per cent and without any doubt to a nuclear accident in Europe.
Would the Minister like me to give him the figures?
The debate on nuclear energy is usually carried on in an hysterical manner. I resent Deputy Brady's statement here tonight that swimmers in Irish sea are bathing in radioactive waters. This Government, my Department, my Minister or anybody else would not allow that to go unnoticed by the public. It is wrong and scandalous to suggest that children bathing in Irish waters are at danger through radioactivity.
I said they were swimming in Irish waters.
It is a wrong and a silly allegation and I am very surprised that a Member of the Deputy's standing would make that allegation.
I am advised that the UK authorities, that is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment have laid down limits on the quantities of radioactivity which may be discharged. I say this particularly in relation to Windscale in Cumbria. These limits conform with recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the requirements of the EEC Directive laying down the basic safety standards for the health of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation.
I am satisfied that the concentration of plutonium in sea water has decreased rapidly and is at a very low level. I am advised by the Nuclear Energy Board that these levels are of negligible significance and are most certainly of no danger to life or the environment.
I reiterate that it is important when discussing nuclear energy and matters relating to it that the debate be conducted in rational terms based on facts, not based on rumour and hysteria——
The Minister interrupted me throughout my contribution.
—or any silly manner into which category I fear Deputy Brady's contribution would fall. I am very surprised at him. We are a nuclear-free country but we have nuclear materials here in our hospitals and in our industry. Happily, the disposal of this nuclear waste does not occur in our country. We are dependent on the supplying countries to take care of that. I wonder if Deputies would care to suggest a method of disposal by the Irish authority if this arose.
In principle my Government are against disposal of nuclear waste at sea. We will continue to monitor the situation and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the protection of the environment and our people.
But you will do nothing.
That is ridiculous.
The Dáil adjourned at 12.30 a.m. on Friday, 8 July 1983 until 10.30 a.m.