asked the Minister for Energy if, in view of the confusion that existed and still exists in this country following the accident at the nuclear plant in Chernobyl and taking account of the much greater risk to this country in the event of a similar accident at a nuclear plant in Britain, he will issue clear instructions to the people on each of the following points: (1) the level of radiation in the atmosphere above which adults should stay indoors; (2) the level of radiation in the atmosphere above which children should stay indoors; (3) the level of radiation above which adults should stop drinking water and if that level also applies to children; (4) the level of radiation above which adults should stop drinking milk and if that level also applies to children; (5) the level of radiation at which the Government would decide to issue iodine tablets and the arrangements, if any, which have been made for the issue of these; (6) the level of radiation in the atmosphere at which the Government would decide to evacuate an area and the arrangements, if any, which have been made for such an evacuation; (7) the number of people in the emergency services who have been trained to deal with such a disaster; the level to which they have been trained; and if he is satisfied with this situation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Radiation Levels.
The Nuclear Energy Board have advised me that, should a nuclear accident occur which would have significant radiological consequences for this country, then it might be necessary to take action of a kind which was not necessary following the accident at Chernobyl.
In such an event the advice of the board would have as its basis the relevant standards and recommendations of the various competent international bodies in the field of radiological protection such as the International Commission for Radiological Protection and the European Community. Broadly speaking there are two levels of dose at which counter measures should be introduced. These levels are not precise but are ranges of projected dose based on local monitoring. Should the projected dose for the duration of the accident which, if averaged over a year would exceed five millisieverts/(mSv), sheltering might be recommended together with the distribution of iodine. Should the projected dose exceed 50m Sv then evacuation would be considered. The precise point at which the two main counter measures would be executed would depend on local conditions.
If emergency procedures were being put in hand children and pregnant women would be given preference and priority.
I understand that 3,500 Civil Defence wardens are particularly trained in the use of field monitoring instruments for high level radiation and in wartime operations such as the evacuation of contaminated areas. Consideration is being given to adapting this training to other types of emergencies such as serious contamination from a nuclear reactor accident.
I am also having all other relevant matters coming within the area of the Deputy's question comprehensively examined by the relevant Departments and agencies with a view to maximising the effectiveness of our preparations for disasters of this kind. I must emphasise, however, that the causes of any such disasters and the determinants of their nature and intensity are not within the control of this State.
Emergency planning must only be considered as a secondary line of defence. The primary protection of the public lies in good engineering design and good plant safety procedures. The emphasis must be on full and proper monitoring of nuclear installations and the prevention of nuclear accidents. This is why the Government have emphasised the need for an independent nuclear inspection force, and are pursuing this matter vigorously.
Will the Minister inform the House of the results of the studies he has undertaken? Is the Minister aware that it was impossible for the NEB to give atmospheric radiation levels for areas other than Dublin and Valentia because they were the only places where samples were taken? Is the Minister aware that there is serious concern about the fact that the NEB had adopted 1,000 becquerels per litre as the maximum allowable level for milk while the European Commission had adopted a figure of 500 becquerels per litre? Is the Minister aware of the serious concern of biological scientists about the effects on the health of the population of a buildup of radioactivity in the food chain as evidenced by a study carried out by Norman Lansdell of Columbia River in the US where what was termed as an insignificant amount of radioactivity in the water led to a level of radioactivity in plant that was 2,000 times greater, a level in fish that was 15,000 times greater and a level in ducks that was 40,000 times greater than the level in the water? Are any studies on the concentration of radioactivity in the food chain being carried out here and, if not, will the Minister ensure that they are carried out?
I should like to assure the Deputy that I will make as much information as possible available to the public. The concern he has expressed was expressed in no uncertain manner during the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl incident. I have had discussions with the Nuclear Energy Board and reviews are taking place within my Department as to the effectiveness of the whole operation. Later, in reply to other questions, I will be dealing with the staffing of the board and the resources available to them. I should like to inform the Deputy that we have to distinguish between the level of radioactivity and the amount of the dose. The latter is very important and the Deputy should keep that in mind. I am satisfied from the monitoring that took place in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident that the necessary safety procedures were invoked by the Nuclear Energy Board. As the Minister responsible I was quite satisfied with the measures taken.
My questions were very specific. I can understand if the Minister does not have all the information available to reply to them but it is important that we should get answers to questions addressed to the Minister. I would like if the House was given replies to those questions some time in the future. Will the Minister inform the House of the efficiency of the methods and equipment used here for testing the levels of radiation in the air, the water, milk and food as compared with that used in other countries? How often are these sampled to monitor radiation in the environment under normal circumstances? Is the Minister aware of the comment of a former chairman of the NEB to the effect that random samples should be taken on a daily basis? Will the Minister provide the NEB with the resources to do so?
I do not wish to anticipate the reply to another question which deals with staffing and the allocation to the board. If the Deputy is concerned about specific points — for example, in relation to the efficiency of the instruments being used here vis-à-vis those in operation in other countries — I am not in a position to clarify them now but I was satisfied with the level of monitoring. Monitoring is an ongoing process and is carried out on a regular basis irrespective of disasters or incidents such as the Chernobyl incident. I am satisfied from the monitoring that no danger exists in relation to radiation here.
Will the Minister agree that a major part of the problem here was that, notwithstanding the various statements and counter-statements issued by various agencies, the person in the street was confused at the end of the day and did not know if it was safe to let children out in the rain or if it was safe to eat the vegetables that were on sale. Will the Minister agree that more attention should be given to advising the public about mundane, everyday matters of that nature? Will the Minister assure the House that, in the event of it becoming necessary to issue iodine tablets in an emergency on a countrywide basis, they will be available for distribution?
In response to the first part of Deputy Taylor's question, if it was considered at any time that it was unsafe for children to be allowed to go out in the rain or for consumers to be consuming vegetables, a statement would have been made to that effect. It was not necessary to make that statement. I would have thought that until such statement was made it was not necessary to clarify it specifically. If the Deputy is making the point that we were not specific enough in telling people what they were and were not allowed to do, that is something that we can bear in mind. In relation to the provision of health resources, I am sure the Government would make available to the public whatever health remedies or methods as were seen necessary in any situation.
Would the Minister agree that if an emergency plan existed there were no ways or means of activating it fast enough in relation to the Chernobyl disaster? Would the Minister also accept that the Nuclear Energy Board who work ordinary office hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., in the event of a disaster at the weekend or late in the evening would not have anyone available to monitor the situation? Was that not the major contributory factor for the misleading statements which went out, that we were not in possession of the facts to be able to give them to the public? Both the Minister and the Nuclear Energy Board differed from time to time over a matter of days as to what the reality was. Is there an emergency plan and what are the provisions of it?
I am sure the Deputy as a former member of the Cabinet is aware of the emergency procedures which exist. They were revised somewhat after the great snow-in of 1981.
Right.
They have been revised and updated. In a nutshell, the Department responsible for activating an emergency plan are the Department with responsibility in the area concerned. In this case the Department of Energy were the Department involved. An emergency plan does exist. In relation to Deputy Reynold's remark that the Nuclear Energy Board work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. I assume that in normal situations they have regular working hours but I can assure the Deputy that in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident they were working far greater hours than the normal office hours. I can verify that by the fact that on the Sunday week after the incident the Nuclear Energy Board were in contact with me at my home in Tralee during the afternoon at about 5.30 p.m. to inform me of the levels of radioactivity in some of the samples they had analysed.
There has been a lot of criticism proffered in the direction of the Nuclear Energy Board but I can say from my experience in working with the officials and the scientists of the NEB in the last number of weeks that they have given of their best. A lot of personal and psychical strain was placed on them because of limited resources etc. I could not fault any of the officials in the assistance they gave me and my officials and that was by night and by day. They worked very hard and much of the criticism was unfair. It was being made by people who were not aware of the efforts that were being made, of the long hours which were being put in or of the sampling that was going on. I know that when I asked for assistance at any time of the day or night, the scientists and officials involved, at great personal inconvenience, were available and willing to come in to do the sampling.
I am calling on Deputy Reynolds and then I am calling Deputy Skelly for a final question. It may be thought that that will not give an opportunity for an exhaustive investigation of this but there are some matters which are not suitable for completely teasing out at Question Time and this happens to be one of them.
I have only one question.
I was going to ask Deputy Reynolds first and then give the Deputy the last one.
Can the Minister tell me the date on which monitoring and sampling was commenced by the Nuclear Energy Board and would he agree that there is no such thing as a safe level of radiation?
I will be able to reply specifically to the first part of the question in the answer to another question. I have a second or third question on this in the course of the next hour.
We have not had an unsafe level of radiation in the past number of weeks. I am not going to claim to be an expert in this area but experts differ on what are acceptable levels. We have to take the best guidance we can get both from within Europe and worldwide in relation to safety in this area. The nuclear industry by its very nature poses a serious threat particularly in relation to health levels and the lack of information we have had in the past. I am quite confident in stating to this House that we have not had any health hazards that we are aware of in the past number of weeks. We can only say that on the basis of the monitoring that was done throughout the country.
I did not ask that. Is there any safe level of radioactivity?
I assume that if that question was put to the experts, they would vary in their replies.
There are many experts across the world who have replied that there is no acceptable level of radiation.
While the sentiments expressed by the Minister are laudable in relation to the members of the Nuclear Energy Board, that is poor consolation in the matter of the occurrence of a disaster. I would like to ask the Minister if he would agree that the response and information coming from the NEB is quite inadequate as has been proved by the answers to these questions? Can the Minister correct the impression he gave to the House on 29 April when he stated that the NEB in conjunction with the meteorological service have an air monitoring programme which would indicate any airborne contamination? We know that the meteorologial service monitor rain samples and it is precisely the fact that air samples were only taken at two points in the country that has led to such concern over the efficiency of our system for monitoring radiation levels in the air.
I do not accept the Deputy's criticism.
The Minister is giving me no answers.
I did not interrupt the Deputy.
That is a poor answer from an experienced politician.
In the area of radiation, radioactivity and the whole nuclear industry it is very difficult to be able to reassure people 100 per cent because there are those among the public who will not accept any reassurance from a layman not to mind an expert and I am not claiming for one moment to be an expert in this area. I am satisfied that any of the statements I have made in relation to this affair I can stand over having regard to the information which was available to me. I am satisfied that the monitoring we were doing was adequate. With the review taking place we will be well positioned if there is a repeat of this incident. Let us hope that there will not be.