Vol. 566 No. 4
125 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the reports he has received from the British authorities regarding their efforts to decommission and make safe Pile 1 of the original Sellafield plant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12975/03]
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, has been advised by the UK regulator, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, NII, that progress in the dismantling of this structure has been slower than envisaged. Originally the operator appointed a commercial enterprise to plan, oversee and execute the dismantling work on this pile. However, the contract foundered when, at a late stage, the proposed engineering solution was deemed unacceptable. The UK Atomic Energy Authority then took back overall control of the project and is now working with a consortium of contractors. The current situation is that the authority and the consortium are re-considering the options for decommissioning Pile 1. They are due to present their latest position and options to NII shortly.
The UK is establishing a new Government Agency, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, NDA, which will be responsible for managing its nuclear waste legacy. The NDA will be charged with funding decommissioning projects and ensuring that this work proceeds.
While the partial continued existence of the pile is clearly undesirable, it is not believed to constitute a serious hazard in terms of its potential for giving rise to an incident with off-site consequences.
I tabled a question to the Minister in exactly the same words as today on 1 April 2003 and the Minister responded in exactly the same words as he responded today. That is why I tabled a further question. In the last sentence of his reply the Minister said that while the particular continued existence of the pile is clearly undesirable, it is not believed to constitute a serious hazard. That statement is simply misleading and wrong. All of the experts, including Mr. John Large, the leading independent nuclear expert, say that this is an extremely hazardous pile arising from the burn-out of the reactor in 1957. Will the Minister revisit this issue because of the report from John Large which indicates serious danger of a further reaction from the continuing radioactivity within the remains of this reactor which was put in place originally in the 1950s to provide material for nuclear bombs?
I agree broadly with the Deputy's concerns because they echo mine and the Government's. We have pursued this issue constantly. The UK Atomic Energy Authority has taken back overall control of this project and is now working with a consortium of contractors. We want to see this pile completely decommissioned. What I said in my reply was in a context, that it is not believed to constitute a serious hazard in terms of its potential for giving rise to an incident with off-site consequences. From the Government's point of view, we are pressing the British Government in the context of its own domain with regard to this issue and we want to see it brought to a conclusion. The UK is establishing a new Government agency to deal with all of these matters. We want to see this brought to a conclusion. We are constantly in touch with the UK Government and The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is constantly dealing with this matter. We want to see it resolved. I wish I were in a position to directly intervene in the UK but I am not. Notwithstanding that, the UK authorities both at ministerial level and down through the system, are well aware of this Government's concerns on this issue.
I thank the Minister for his further reply. The point I am trying to make is that there is a danger of an incident with off-site consequences, and John Large, in his examination of the pile, has specified that that is the case. He also specified that the building around the two tonnes of highly radioactive material that is there now has deteriorated to a point where it is about to collapse and in that collapse an incident could occur that could have off-site consequences as bad as the consequences of the original fire which spread radioactive contamination to Ireland and Europe as well. Will the Minister have the off-site consequences of an incident there re-examined and not take the word of British Nuclear Fuels or of the other British agencies for it because they have told the Government untruths – I know the word "lies" is not to be used even in that context. They were deceitful on a number of occasions previously until we found out for ourselves. I ask that the expertise of our own agency be used to establish this aspect of the case.
At a minimum, they gave the wrong information. I am quite prepared to put that on the record. That information was available internationally and it was inaccurate and incorrect. There is no question about that, and it is a matter of deep concern to this Government and to me as it is to the Deputy and everybody else. The Radiological Protection Institute is the institute on which I depend for all of this information and I have to say, in fairness to it, that no day passes without it being directly involved and engaged in these issues. It comes back to an earlier question which I will not go into. There is a level of frustration and of deep concern to the point where we believe this Government, as a sovereign Government on behalf of the people, has a right to far more information on a whole range of issues that I will not go into again. That is why we have pursued the case under the OSPAR Convention and will shortly start the case under the UNCLOS Convention. If I have any more up-to-date information as we develop this case I will communicate it to the Deputy.
Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government gave a commitment that it would allow access to Sellafield by scientists from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland? Did it renege on that commitment and, if so, what direct communication has taken place since between the Irish and UK Governments?
When did the Minister last make his views known to the British ambassador to Ireland or is this simply an exchange of communication? Has he met face to face with the British ambassador to Ireland to make his views known on the issue?
There have been longer than expected engineering difficulties. We have heard it all before. It is grossly incompetent. Has the Minister conveyed to BNFL that the effect of what it is doing is killing our citizens?
I am happy to confirm that arrangements are in hand for me to meet the British ambassador shortly after his appointment. Those arrangements have been put in motion and I expect to have that meeting shortly. Only recently, I wrote to the UK Minister, whom I met recently on the issue and hope to meet again for further formal meetings. I also avail of the opportunity at many other meetings that take place between Ministers to raise these issues. The point raised by Deputy Allen is at the nub of the issue. When we get an agreement in place the information supplied is interpreted differently by both sides. That is at the nub of the difficulty. We consider that the interpretation put on the information supplied to us by the UK authorities is too minimalist. We want more substantial information. We had tried every means to get that type of information to improve the relationship. In fairness, on a number of issues the relationship has improved and the flow of information has improved. However, we want that substantially increased. When we could not get that mutual agreement between the two partners we had no choice but to initiate the two court cases to which I have referred.
