Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Oct 1994

Vol. 445 No. 6

Written Answers. - THORP and EARP Plants Radiation Levels.

John Bruton

Question:

367 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the arrangements for monitoring the incremental effect on radiation levels in the Irish sea of the THORP and EARP plants which are due to open by the end of 1994; and his views on whether they will significantly alter the findings of the 1991/1992 Irish Radiological Protection Institute report to the effect that the levels then obtaining did not then constitute a significant hazard to the people of Ireland. [295/94]

Rory O'Hanlon

Question:

380 Dr. O'Hanlon asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if his attention has been drawn to the concern of people living along the east coast at the increasing capacity of the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield; the way in which the situation is monitored; the steps, if any, that are being taken to try to secure the closure of the plant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [831/94]

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Cowen)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 367 and 380 together.

The present Government and previous administrations have, for many years, been seeking the closure of the Sellafield Reprocessing Plant and a halt to expansion plans there. This culminated in two very detailed and wideranging submissions sent to the British authorities in 1993 by the Irish Government. Despite the concerns of the Government outlined in these submissions and at various international fora, the British Government decided on 15 December, 1993 to grant the discharge authorisations to British Nuclear Fuels to allow the THORP plant to operate.

Following the decision of the British authorities to proceed with THORP, I requested the RPII to monitor the effects of discharges from Sellafield with particular emphasis on discharges from the THORP reprocessing plant. In this context, the institute has expanded its marine monitoring programme to obtain further data on the radionuclides which will be discharged in greater quantities under the new Sellafield discharge authorisations. The RPII, in its report entitled "Radioactivity Monitoring of the Irish Marine Environment, 1991 and 1992", estimated that the radiation doses due to the consumption of fish and shellfish landed at north-east ports were calculated to be 1.1 and 0.74 microsieverts (mSv) to the typical consumer and 5.2 and 3.6 mSv to a heavy consumer of seafood in 1991 and 1992 respectively. The results for 1993 and early 1994 were similar. It has been estimated that if discharges to the Irish Sea from Sellafield were made at the new authorised limits, then the dose for the heavy consumer would be about 11-12 microsieverts. These doses represent only a fraction of 1 per cent of the average annual dose of about 3000 mSv received by members of the Irish public from all sources of radiation, most of which arises from naturally occurring sources. These results indicate that there is not likely to be a significant risk to the health of the people of Ireland. Nevertheless, radioactive contamination of the Irish marine environment continues to occur as a consequence of activities at Sellafield and I have asked the institute to monitor the situation on an on-going basis.

I would add that concerns have been expressed about the quantities of Krypton-85 which will be discharged to the atmosphere from the THORP reprocessing plant. Its discharge could be ten times greater than the existing discharge once THORP is fully operational. In view of this, the RPII has installed facilities at its laboratories in Clonskeagh in Dublin to sample Krypton-85 in the atmosphere. Measurements began in late 1993 and results indicate that the level of Krypton-85 is in line with that expected in temperate latitudes of the northern hemisphere. The radiological significance of Krypton-85 is relatively low and is not likely to result in a significant health hazard. In conclusion, as in the past, I and my officials will maintain international and diplomatic pressure in every appropriate forum and at every possible opportunity to highlight our concerns and to request the cessation of Sellafield's reprocessing facilities. Our opposition to Sellafield has already been raised at EC level, in the International Atomic Energy Agency, at the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency meetings and at the Paris Commission and the London Dumping Convention. In addition, at Energy and Environmental Councils of the EU, responsible Ministers have persistently raised Ireland's concerns about the dangers arising from Sellafield's discharges and operations.