Michael Lowry
Question:11 Mr. Lowry asked the Minister for Energy the actions he has taken to oppose the proposed expansion at Sellafield of underground dumping of nuclear waste and warheads.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sellafield Expansion.
Nora Owen
Question:36 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Energy the action he has taken to date to express Ireland's deep concern and opposition to the proposed siting by NIREX of a nuclear waste dump at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:40 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Energy the steps he has taken to object to the proposal to site a nuclear waste depository at Sellafield; whether he has any proposals to meet UK ministers on the issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:53 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Energy if he will itemise the representations of protests which have been made to the United Kingdom authorities concerning the proposed NIREX nuclear dump at Sellafield; and the action he plans to prevent the dump being located there.
Toddy O'Sullivan
Question:66 Mr. T. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Energy the measures he proposes to take to object to and resist the building of an underground nuclear waste depository at Sellafield in Cumbria, England; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 36, 40, 53 and 66 together.
The growing accumulation of nuclear waste at Sellafield is a matter of great concern to the Government and the public and is not acceptable as a long term arrangement.
Construction of an underground repository for final disposal of waste is seen by the British authorities as a solution to this problem. The risks from these proposals depend on many factors such as detailed design of safety barriers, the geological characteristics of the selected site and the arrangements for conditioning, packaging, monitoring and, if necessary, retrieval of waste.
On 23 July 1991, UK NIREX Ltd, the British nuclear industry's waste disposal executive, announced that it has chosen Sellafield as the site at which it will concentrate its further investigations for the development of an underground repository for intermediate and low-level radioactive waste. With a view to ensuring that we are fully informed of developments, I immediately arranged for officials of my Department to meet that day on the matter with their British counterparts in London. It was agreed at that meeting to bring forward a meeting of the intergovernmental Ireland/UK Contract Group on Nuclear Matters, scheduled for later in the year, for a full exchange of views and information in the matter.
In recent months I have written to the Secretaries of State for Energy and for the Environment expressing the strong opposition of the Irish Government to the continued operation of Sellafield and expressed deep concern in relation to the proposed repository. Also, I recently reiterated our concerns in the course of a recent meeting with the British Ambassador.
At the Contact Group meeting which took place on 9 September my Department again covered Irish concerns about the proposed repository to the UK side. Information was provided to my Department's officials on on-going site investigations and repository design studies and further information will be obtained in due course when the results of those studies and investigations are available.
The UK representatives said that it was envisaged that an application for planning permission would be submitted in autumn 1992 and that a public inquiry would be an intrinsic part of this process. My Department and the Nuclear Energy Board will carefully study any such application, of course, and advise me of their views.
Does the Minister and his Department share the Fine Gael view that an underground repository is essentially unproven, experimental technology? What advice has he received from the Nuclear Energy Board in relation to that means of disposing of or storing waste as compared with the over ground system?
What the United Kingdom authorities have done is selected a site where they will carry out extensive research into the potential of the site to be used as a repository for waste. The studies they intend to carry out may in time show that the site, for geological and other reasons, is not suitable but I am not in a position to form an opinion along those lines. As the Deputy is aware, the reason we are objecting to this nuclear waste repository is that we are legitimately concerned about the danger it would pose to our community given its close proximity to us. We are continuing our campaign to make known to the United Kingdom authorities the Government's opposition to what they have proposed. As I explained to the House, as a sovereign government they can ignore our campaign, pleadings, arguments and requests in this matter and proceed. As a member of the European Community, we are trying to have a European-wide approach adopted to these matters. We are continuing our efforts in that regard also.
Will the Minister accept that the British Government and NIREX are giving him a bum steer in that on the one hand, they are saying they are going to carry out extensive research but, on the other, they are telling him that they will initiate an application for planning permission? Will the Minister accept that NIREX have their sights firmly fixed on the Sellafield site and that, irrespective of our objections, they intend to proceed? Has the Minister consulted his legal advisers and the Attorney General with regard to the provisions of the EUR-ATOM Treaty to ensure that the Government's view is not ignored, as he suggests it might or possibly will be given previous experience? There is power and authority under the Treaty to insist on consultations and that regard be had for the interests of the Irish community in any developments in the atomic area?
I have outlined to the House on numerous occasions the position with regard to the Government taking legal action on this matter. That position would obtain with regard to the NIREX proposals and the other facilities at Sellafield. Given that they are proceeding to make an application for planning permission, an environmental impact statement will have to be submitted by them. An assessment can then be made of the environmental implications of the proposals they have made. We will keep a careful eye on any information made available on this project. Extensive planning will be required on the British side before they arrive at a position where they will make a decision to proceed with this facility.
Will the Minister reconsider his view that it would be inappropriate for him to hold a view as to the scientific soundness of the new method of dumping? Only last week we heard from some of the scientists of the Nuclear Energy Board who are to the forefront in the latest experiments in nuclear science. That could be a very useful weapon. I ask the Minister to review his approach and seek the advice of the Nuclear Energy Board in relation to this means of storage as against existing methods. This is the first opportunity I have had to press the Minister on this issue largely because these questions follow questions to the Taoiseach which take up most of the time available. Will the Minister say why he turned his back on the possibility of taking a legal case at any level, either in the European Court, the World Court or under the various treaties? I accept, because the level of emission has reduced substantially, we would find it hard to have Sellafield closed. If we could prove that existing pollution of the Irish Sea can be directly related to Sellafield, and is of such a nature that substantial compensation is warranted, we might be in a position indirectly to make Sellafield and its expansion in particular uneconomic. Would that be worth pursuing even if we do not achieve our objective of a total shut down through direct legal means?
I have explained to the House on numerous occasions — I have also sent information to the Deputy on this — that the possibility of taking a successful legal action does not exist. I have extended an invitation to the spokespersons of the other parties to present me with the case they think I could take and I have assured them that I will have it studied carefully by the Attorney General to see is a case could be brought.
The Minister is passing the buck.
I am not passing the buck; I am stating clearly my position. The Deputy is a lawyer and he has not yet submitted to me the bones of a case which might have a reasonable chance of success.
Greenpeace did.
Greenpece did not. That matter has been clearly and explicitly dealt with.
Lawyers have differed.
They did not. I went to the trouble of arranging for the Greenpeace legal adviser to sit down with the staff of the Attorney General to discuss what they were suggesting we might do but they did not indicate that they believed there was any possibility of us winning such a case. They did not present the specific grounds or evidence on which we could take such a case. It is pointless repeating this every time I answer Parliamentary Questions on this matter. I do not mind repeating it but I am sure the general public must ask what is the point playing this record continuously. I have an open mind on the matter but neither I, the Attorney General's office or Greenpeace have been able to establish a case. If Deputies who continue to raise this matter here want to present me with the bones of a case I will be happy to take action but they have not done so. Other than raising the matter with me at Question Time they have not come forward with any specific or substantive case, backed up with evidence, which would justify my taking such a stance against another sovereign state.
I am amazed at the Minister's statement with regard to Greenpeace. My information is the contrary and I will produce evidence to that effect. On the question of planning permission which, as the Minister said, NIREX will have to obtain from the British planning authorities in September next year it is not quite clear from his reply whether we will have a formal input into the planning process. Will he tell the House whether we will have a formal input and, if so, does he propose making a formal protest or lodging an objection?
I am amused at the Deputy suggesting that he is going to come forward with a case because this is about the fifth occasion on which I have invited him to do so but he has not. I should like to go into this matter in more detail with regard to NIREX, the position on planning and when the decision will be made. As I understand it, the United Kingdom side clearly see, on current indications, the area around Sellafield as suitable but it is too early for them to come to conclusions pending the receipt of further information on many aspects which have to be considered in regard to the site's suitability for that type of storage.
These kind of aspects include faulting, fractures, permeability, relationship of host rock with surrounding rock, water gradient and a whole series of other relevent matters. This repository, as proposed, will comprise 26 vaults located 800 metres underground; four would be built in the first instance and others added as required. That is the proposal — if it ever comes into being. The repository will be 600 metres long, 25 metres wide and 35 metres high; each vault will be progessively sealed and the waste will be grouted in a special concrete mix which will allow for retrieval, if necessary.
It is envisaged that a multi-barrier approach will prevent the migration of radioactivity from the waste, that is waste in drums, drums in an overpack, over-packs in a vault, and back-filled vaults in a body of rock. An environmental impact assessment must be submitted with the planning application and that, of course, with all the other documents, will be open to public inspection. Our officials will have free access to the documents and will be able to study them carefully. The Secretary of State will call in the application and he will initiate a public inquiry.
Possibly.
He has indicated that he will initiate a public inquiry. If the planning application was granted it would still be necessary to satisfy the requirements of various licensing authorities before construction and operation could proceed. These would include the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Fisheries. That is the extent of the kind of information which has been made available to my Department by the United Kingdom authorities in regard to their proposals.
Will the Minister state succinctly if he will take a lead from Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation who were represented at the Wilva B and Hinkley Point inquiries? Will he now ensure that our Government will be represented at the forthcoming inquiry in to the NIREX proposal given the scale of the proposal, its profound implications on the whole security and future safety of the Irish Sea and his own belief that, in any event, our Government's views could well be ignored by either the British Government or NIREX——
I must ask for brevity, we have spent too much time on this question.
Will the Minister ensure that the Irish Government — and all their resources — will be represented at the public inquiry?
I commend the vigilance of the local authority members along the east coast in regard to their genuine concerns about this proposal. I also commend their intention to participate actively in the inquiries. However, it would not be appropriate for me as Minister for deal with the matter in the arena in which they are operating. I have responsibility to operate in a Government to Government arena and it would be inappropriate for me, as a representative of the Government with responsibility in these matters, to participate at the other level. I have a duty to perform which relates to the relationship of this State with an adjoining State and there are opportunities available to me to make our views known in that matter.
With regard to the court case, if we accept what the Minister said, that all Greenpeace have given him are legal avenues to pursue; that it is internationally accepted that the Irish Sea is the most radioactive water in the world and that the sole source of some of the deposits found, such as americium, can only come from reprocessing, will the Minister agree that we have a prima facia case in relation to substantial damage being done to Irish waters and that we could at least claim compensation for the damage done? While the emissions may be sufficiently under control not to cause the situation to deteriorate any further——
This is repetition. The Deputy put that point of view earlier.
I have already replied to that.
We cannot afford the luxury of repetition.