Vol. 435 No. 3
15 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the number of nuclear installations that are located along the west coast of Britain; the number of incidents, if any, requiring international reporting; the point recorded on the incident scale in the case of each incident that has occurred at these installations, including Sellafield, for each of the years from 1980.
22 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the number of nuclear installations that are located along the west coast of Britain; the number of incidents, if any, requiring international reporting; and the point recorded on the incident scale in the case of each incident which has occurred at the installations, including Sellafield, for each of the years from 1980.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 22 together.
There are 13 nuclear installations located on or near the west coast of Britain. Eight nuclear power stations, three nuclear fuel manufacture and/or processing stations, one Ministry of Defence installation and one commercial source production plant for industrial, medical and research applications.
Under procedures agreed at meetings of the Ireland-UK contact group on nuclear safety matters, my Department is informed of all significant incidents occurring at British nuclear installations, including Sellafield, which are notified to the UK Department of the Environment. None of the incidents was reportable under international arrangements. Under the International Atomic Energy Agency Convention on early notification of a nuclear accident, only an incident which has resulted or may result in an international transboundary release that could be of radiological safety significance for another State is required to be notified. The International Nuclear Event Scale, INES, which was developed by the IAEA and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD after the Chernobyl accident, is a tool to promptly and consistently communicate to the public the safety significance of reported events at nuclear installations.
The House can be assured that the radiological consequences for this country of any incidents reported by my Department are monitored by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. We are satisfied that the contact group and the notification procedure are a valuable forum for the exchange of information and provide us with precise and up-to-date information which is essential for our overall monitoring of UK nuclear installations.
On the question of the number of nuclear installations located along the west coast of Britain, can the Minister tell us if the UK authorities provide the Department with a full detailed account on each of the regular safety checks carried out at these installations?
As that did not form part of the question submitted I do not have that information, but if the Deputy tables another question I would be delighted to obtain the information for him.
The Minister of State must know if checks are carried out.
I have answered the question I was asked. As I am sure those who undergo medical checks know, safety checks are hardly notifiable; but I will obtain the information for the Deputy.
The Minister of State's admission that he is unaware——
I am admitting nothing.
It is a glaring omission in the agreement between this country and the UK that a detailed account on the safety checks carried out at these installations is not submitted to the Department. Will the Minister agree that this glaring gap in the arrangement should be rectified?
I am totally confused by Deputy Allen.
It would appear to involve additional information.
If the Deputy wants further information and specifies it, I will be delighted to provide it if it is available. Ireland's total opposition to nuclear power is internationally recognised. We have made our position abundantly clear in every forum at every possible opportunity.
We want the Minister to do better.
He promised he would close them down.
He said he would take them to court and close them down.
Is the Minister satisfied with the requirement to report only those incidents involving transboundary pollution, or does he believe that that is too rigid and that it should be flexible? If he does believe that, what has he done to change it?
I am satisfied that under international regulations and international agreements only incidents involving transboundary pollution can be reported. Since we established the UK contact group, information comes through on a regular basis which is of major assistance to Ireland.
That was not the question.
Will the Minister accept that because of our proximity to the west coast of the UK we have a greater interest in the safety of the nuclear installations there than in other parts of the UK? Will the Minister give any reassurance to the general public in regard to the safety of those nuclear installations? Despite the anti-nuclear stance of the Government, does he not appreciate the concern of the general public because of the proximity of these installations?
I accept that we have a major interest and that we are very vulnerable because of the location of the installations on the west coast of the UK. We are constantly in communication with the UK through the UK contact group and are getting satisfactory information. The public can be certain that Ireland will continue to monitor this situation and keep the lines of communication open and, at every available opportunity, oppose the whole operation.
I note the Minister is reassured. I am not.
After the Minister's reply today, the public do not know how safe they are, because the Minister does not know.
