Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994

Vol. 444 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sellafield Underground Waste Repository.

Proinsias De Rossa

Question:

11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if his attention has been drawn to recent claims made by a former plutonium chemist at Sellafield (details supplied) that the proposed underground nuclear waste dump at the Sellafield plant in Cumbria could turn into an uncontrollable plutonium-fuelled nuclear reactor and could result in serious water pollution in view of the implications for radiation levels in the Irish Sea; the representations, if any, he has made to the British authorities regarding the dump; the response, if any, he has received; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Cowen

I am aware of the recent claims, by a former plutonium chemist at Sellafield with regard to the proposed underground waste repository at Sellafield.

UK Nirex Ltd. the British nuclear industry's waste disposal executive, has delayed the submission of a planning application for the proposed repository because of the need to carry out further research into the complex geology and water flow beneath Sellafield. The possibility of water being contaminated and plutonium being concentrated in the way described in the recent claims will be investigated by Nirex before a final decision on the construction of a repository is taken. The investigation will take place in a rock characterisation facility in the vicinity of the site proposed for the repository. The intention is that the results of this investigation will be taken into account during the planning of the repository and during the appraisal of any subsequent application.

In our submission on THORP of October 1993, the Government expressed grave concern about the construction of such a facility at Sellafield. My Department, with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and the Geological Survey of Ireland, will continue to monitor developments with regard to the proposed repository. If the repository is to proceed an environmental impact assessment and a public inquiry will be an intrinsic part of any planning permission process.

Mr. Gilmore

I am sure the Minister is aware of the claims made by the former plutonium chemist at Sellafield that this Nirex dump could result in serious water contamination, pollution of drinking water and so on. Since the report became public knowledge last January, what attempts have been made to have a study of these claims carried out by the Radiological Protection Institute, the Department or an independent body? Is it the Minister's intention to rely on the doubtful validity of any examination carried out by Nirex which, clearly, has a vested interest in proceeding with the dump?

Mr. Cowen

Environmental radioactivity monitoring is carried out by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to determine the effects of radioactive discharges on the Irish marine environment and on the Irish Sea. The effects are quantified by the institute in some detail through their analyses of fish and shellfish collected from the principal fishing ports and of seaweed, sediment and sea water from selected locations around the Irish coastline.

There were significant reductions in radioactive effluents from Sellafield during the early 1980s. Since then there has been a further slow decline in contamination levels. Even with the start-up of THORP, Sellafield will still represent about 0.2 per cent of a person's present total radiation dose from all sources of radiation, the great bulk of which are natural. Although the principal objective of our monitoring programme is to obtain an estimate of the radiation exposure of the Irish public, it also enables us to detect unrecorded discharges, examine trends and generally relate quantities reported as having been discharged with the institute's monitoring results. This information is regularly published in the form of reports by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland.

On the question of the repository going ahead, there is a delay relating to a planning application on which some work is being done. If a planning application is made, we will oppose it and will be involved in making submissions on the environmental impact assessment in the public inquiry if they proceed. At the moment there is no decision to proceed but we will monitor developments.

Mr. Gilmore

Instead of reading the second page of his brief, will the Minister answer the question I put to him? What has he done since last January to have the report of the Sellafield chemist examined by the appropriate Irish agencies? Am I to take it from his reply that nothing has been done to examine this report other than normal, ongoing monitoring and to which the second page of his brief referred?

Mr. Cowen

The Deputy's question, presumably, arises from the newspaper report. The RPII continues to monitor the situation and in the event of any development we will make our position clear. We already noted in October 1993 that we objected to the notion of such a repository and we will stick to that in the event of any developments.

Mr. Sargent

Does the Minister accept that although the radiation levels in the Irish Sea are low they are still, particularly in the Carlingford area, about four times what they are on the west coast, and that there is no basis for celebrating the RPII report? Will he also accept that THORP and this particular repository represents the possibility of a much greater level of contamination, whether by continuous discharge or accident? Instead of simply opposing it, will the Minister propose the option of dry storage — hardly a solution but a stopgap — rather than a repository? Will he try to pre-empt the planning application so that we are not faced with a fait accompli as we have been until now in regard to other nuclear industry products?

Mr. Cowen

I note what the Deputy says with regard to the levels of radioactivity between one coast and another. The absolute levels in terms of what is and is not safe are what concerns us. On the question of the RPII report, it is not for me to either celebrate or denigrate it. Its findings are scientifically based. The RPII gives the facts based on its monitoring the position. Its independence must be assured and I would not interfere with what it publishes based on the scientific data it collects. The percentages I am giving are based on the scientific data compiled by the RPII on our behalf.

On the planning application, whether we like it or not there is a nuclear industry in Britain which has the right to make a planning application to the relevant planning authorities but whatever third party rights are available to us will be taken up. They will undertake an environmental impact assessment and a public inquiry and we will make our views known based on the facts.

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has advised me that the Irish Sea contains 13.7 units of radioactivity per kilogram. This compares with 14.6 units in the eastern Mediterranean, 15 units in the Red Sea and 22 units in the Persian Gulf. There were significant reductions in radioactive effluents from Sellafield during the early 1980s and since then there has been a further slow decline in contamination levels. A new £600 million complex of five clean-up plants, known as low-active effluent treatment plants, recently started operations at Sellafield which is expected to reduce yet further the radioactive content of discharges from Sellafield to the Irish Sea. As I indicated, the Government expressed grave concern about the proposed repository at Sellafield. If it is to proceed, both an environmental impact study and a public inquiry will be necessary and we will make our views known as that stage.