Vol. 466 No. 1
22 Mr. R. Burke asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the actions, if any, he is taking at EU level to ensure that, on this, the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl incident, similar catastrophes cannot be allowed happen in the future. [8279/96]
Although the nuclear industry in the UK is a matter of more obvious concern to the Irish public in view of its proximity and history of incidents, the safety of nuclear power reactors in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union remains the major cause of great environmental concern worldwide. Recent knowledge about the unsafe nature of 15 Soviet-built Chernobyl-type nuclear reactors still operating in Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania have led to calls for those reactors to be closed down permanently. I support calls for such decisive action.
Western energy experts have agreed on the measures needed to prevent further accidents at the Chernobyl-type reactors, but this cannot be done effectively without massive international finance. Following the recent nuclear summit of the group of seven highly industrialised countries held in Moscow, I am hopeful that international initiatives will provide a solution for the elimination of these sources of potential further disaster. First and foremost, the complete closure of Chernobyl is urgent and during our EU Presidency we will progress those measures in the interests of worldwide safety.
Through the west's assistance programmes for the reform of the energy sectors of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Ireland will continue to insist on the highest levels of nuclear safety and radiation protection in the nuclear sector. Proven efforts to enhance safety and security in the nuclear field must be a precondition of accession to the European Union for countries of Central and Eastern Europe. During our EU Presidency I will actively pursue these matters. I expect that Ireland will be in a position to ratify the Nuclear Safety Convention by the end of June and I will be urging all states to accede to the Convention as soon as possible.
I will continue to press for the closure and dismantling of all unsafe reactors in Central and Eastern Europe and will seek the necessary financial assistance to make this possible. Investment in non-nuclear projects, alternative energy, demand side management and energy efficiency should be investigated fully as a replacement for nuclear capacity in a region that has for far too long been dependent on atomic energy. While I would urge all countries not to choose nuclear power as an energy source we must insist that if they do so, the highest standards are applied in order to protect public health and the environment.
Does the Minister's brief include consideration of nuclear submarines which pose a potential risk in the long-term? Some people consider they are the greatest threat of an accident in the former Soviet Union. What is the estimated cost of bringing Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union up to a certain safety standard? The Minister has not mentioned the source of the finance required. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the leaked report in one of the Sunday newspapers regarding the dump off Dounreay in Scotland? Has he raised it with the British Government? What is his reaction to the suggestion that this dump will be opened up and part of its contents put in the proposed dump at Sellafield?
I understand submarines are included in the review of all the unsafe installations undertaken by the G7. I understand the cost of dealing with Chernobyl reactor 4 would cost $10 billion. That money will have to come from the countries who have the money, i.e. the rich countries. There are no sources to provide it within the countries who have the problem. It behoves the industrialised western countries, the rich nations, to provide the funding to eliminate this danger, which is a threat to the whole world.
I am aware of the media reports about the nuclear waste dump off Dounreay on the north-east coast of Scotland and I am having them investigated urgently with the Scottish authorities. I have also obtained a copy of independent reports on the potential health effects and possible source of radioactivity found at Dounreay undertaken by two UK agencies, the radioactive waste management advisory committee and the committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment. The report addresses the possible health implications and putative sources of radioactive particles which have been found in the vicinity of Dounreay nuclear establishment. According to these reports on investigations into new possible sources of contamination of the Dounreay foreshore, the radioactive waste management advisory committee takes the view that although a single source cannot be unambiguously defined their opinion is that the most likely source for radioactive particles found at Dounreay foreshore is surface contamination, adjacent to the top of the intermediate level waste disposal shaft. It stresses that other sources cannot be ruled out at this stage.
Both the committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment and the radioactive waste management advisory committee agree that the intermediate level waste disposal shaft at Dounreay is an unacceptable model for the disposal of radioactive waste and recommend that the UK Atomic Energy Agency operating at Dounreay should take steps over a relatively short timescale to propose a solution and a timetable for the treatment of the waste in accordance with modern standards. The radioactive waste management advisory committee was advised that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency would be undertaking a review of options for the waste shaft. The media reports suggest that a decision has been made to remove existing nuclear waste at Dounreay. However, I have not yet established the definitive position from the UK authorities. When I have done so, I will consider what appropriate action is necessary.
For the past number of years there has been a large influx to this country of children who have been affected by the incident at Chernobyl. Many organisations assist in bringing those children here. Having spent a number of weeks here, they return in a better state of health. Will the Minister make some suggestion at EU level in regard to providing proper financial assistance for the many organisations, not only on this island but throughout the EU, who assist in this work? It is well recognised that the health of children from Belarus and from in and around Chernobyl is much improved as a result of travelling to countries where the air is much better.
I compliment the voluntary organisations both in Ireland and in other western European countries who give assistance and take children from the Chernobyl area to Ireland and many other countries. I compliment also the other bodies who send assistance directly to the areas affected. I would be slow to say that the efforts of the voluntary bodies should be interfered with or that they should be taken over by State agencies.
I am not saying that, but they could do with a few bob.
I know the Deputy is not saying that, but I am guarding against that. The Deputy made the point that there should be direct assistance, both medical and otherwise. Direct assistance from the EU is available under the various assistance programmes. That assistance should be increased to eliminate the need for the work we are talking about and praising.
Will emphasis be placed on the east European nuclear industry during the EU Presidency? What does the Minister of State mean by "priority"? Will he accept that unless the Irish Government places due emphasis, particularly during the Presidency, on the NIREX plans and the general ageing nuclear industry close to this island in Britain, other member states will be reluctant to voice concerns? Will this matter be given priority, along with other important issues, during the Presidency?
The issue of Sellafield and THORP will continue to be a top priority with the Irish Government. Our position on that matter is clear and we will make it an important part of the agenda for the EU Presidency.
Since the inception of the political and economic changes in central and east European countries and the former Soviet Union, the European Union has initiated activities to help them upgrade their nuclear reactors and improve their safety culture in all sectors of civilian use of nuclear energy. The main efforts of the European Union have been made via programmes such as PHARE, Poland-Hungry aid for the restructuring of the economy, and TACIS, technical assistance to the commonwealth of independent states and Georgia. However, a number of other activities are carried out in support of the assistance programme to cover specific issues with a view to long-term co-operation. In many countries of the CEEC-CIS nuclear power stations provide an essential source of electricity and, however unsafe a plant may appear to western eyes or experts, immediate closure may not be a practical option. In such circumstances, the EU has concentrated on providing technical help and advice to increase awareness of design weaknesses and to improve contingency planning, while not losing sight of the final objective, to close down as soon as possible the more dangerous reactors. The EU initiatives have produced a number of results. Attitudes are changing at Government level with CEEC-CIS authorities accepting that an independent nuclear safety regulatory authority is an essential element of an effective safety culture. On site projects have provided EU experts semi-permanently on hand to train local staff which result in a much greater understanding of design flaws and other vital safety issues. The transfer of knowledge and expertise between the EU and specialised organisations in the CEEC-CIS has led to a new spirit of co-operation.
Is the Minister of State satisfied that the $10 billion will be furnished to make Chernobyl reasonably safe? Also, is he satisfied with the openness, transparency and accountability of the information given by the British authorities when asked about accidents or issues connected with its nuclear industry?
I cannot say if the $10 billion will be provided, but the matter will have my full support. It is essential that richer western nations provide the money to make these nuclear stations safe for the entire world. We cannot delay any longer. Chernobyl has been allowed fester half-capped with a piece of concrete for ten years and is leaking dangerously. A new covering of steel and concrete is essential to seal off reactor four, following which the other 15 reactors in the Ukraine and the former Soviet Union, which are as dangerous as Chernobyl, must be dealt with.
We get information from the British authorities on the basis of a relatively old agreement with which I am not satisfied. I had discussions recently with the British Ambassador on this matter. At present we are told about incidents which involve a release of radioactivity into the atmosphere or sea. I am not satisfied that is all we should know. We should be told about all accidents, even if they do not involve a spillage and I have requested that this be done.
