Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 1992

Vol. 134 No. 4

Adjournment Matters. - Sellafield Nuclear Plant.

Mr. Haughey

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for taking this matter this evening.

When I raised the issue of Sellafield in the Seanad earlier this year I suggested that the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant at Cumbria was the single biggest threat posed to the future of the Irish people and our natural environment. Nothing has changed since then. In fact, there have been a number of further developments and I am anxious that the Irish Government now clarify their position on these matters.

Reports appeared in June of this year suggesting that the Irish Government agreed in April 1990 to EC funding of the nuclear industry and signed a commitment by EC Finance Ministers to increase low cost loans to the industry. On 2 June 1992 UK Nirex announced that it was postponing for 12 months the submission of a planning application for the proposed repository at Cumbria. In June 1992 we also had a return to good old rock and roll protest with a massive demonstration concert at Sellafield by the rock group, U2.

The Dáil discussed this matter on 1 July 1992 and there were indications in the press at that time that the Government were moving closer to the view that a legal action could be taken against the operation of Sellafield. On 8 September 1992 another spillage of radioactive plutonium at the plant caused its temporary closure. Finally we had a decision by BNFL to start up the operation of Sellafield (2), THORP, in December 1992 and confirmation that they applied to gain the appropriate radioactive and chemical effluent discharge authorizations.

Given the history of the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant, the Irish people, and particularly the people living on the east coast, have every right to demand the closure of Sellafield. We should also be very concerned about the transport of radioactive material to and from the expanded plant. I know the Government share these fears and have conveyed them repeatedly to the UK Government. In addition, I know that the Minister has raised this matter several times at EC level and that Ireland is to the forefront in calling for the establishment of a Community inspection force for nuclear reprocessing plants. The establishment of the Radiological Protection Institute was a major advance as regards environmental legislation. I hope the institute will continue to be vigilant in monitoring the harmful effects of the plant as far as this country is concerned.

Reports appeared in June of this year to the effect that the Irish Government presided over increased funding by the EC for the nuclear industry. I understand that loans were set aside specifically for reprocessing of nuclear waste. This is significant given that there are only two reprocessing plants in the European Community. Clarification of this matter is needed if the Irish Government's case is not to be weakened. Ireland must take a firm stand in the EC against expansion of the nuclear reprocessing industry.

Fears have also been raised in relation to the proposed repository at Sellafield. It has been suggested that the site is totally unsuitable from a geological point of view. I understand now that a planning application for permission to build the underground repository is not now expected to be made by Nirex before the second half of this decade. This news is to be welcomed and I would suggest that Ireland should continue to express its total opposition to the construction of this repository at every available opportunity.

Young people in particular have led the way as regards the need for environmental protection. Rock and roll protests returned to the political agenda earlier this year when U2 in association with Greenpeace held a massive demonstration concert at Sellafield. U2 are to be congratulated on this initiative. The protest was a most welcome development and, in fact, was probably more effective than endless speeches by parliamentarians in Parliaments throughout Europe on the issue.

I know that the Government are committed to legal action against Sellfield if a sufficient case for it can be shown to exist. However, they believe they cannot initiate such action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence. Newspaper reports following the Dáil debates of 1 July 1992 on this issue suggested that the Government were now seriously considering taking a legal action. I would ask the Minister to keep this option open at all times and to consistently examine all the facts and, if the opportunity arises, serious consideration should be given to taking a legal action.

After many assurances from the BNFL in relation to safety at Sellafield and following further assurances that a new open style approach had been adopted by BNFL the impossible happened again last month. On 8 September a spillage of radioactive material at the plant caused its temporary closure. This incident demonstrates yet again that the Sellafield plant is fundamentally unsafe. I congratulate the Minister on his quick response to this accident at the time, particularly by involving the Radiological Protection Institute.

The decision by BNFL to start up the operation of Sellafield (2), THORP, in December 1992 should be a matter of grave concern to everybody living adjacent to the plant. It must surely be the case that emissions and discharges from the plant will now increase. I understand that BNFL has now made an application to the regulatory authorities in the UK — the Inspectorate of Pollution and Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — for new authorisation at the Sellafield site to take into account discharges from THORP. Draft documentation should now be issued by the regulatory authorities in the UK in the near future for formal consultation.

I suggest that the Minister should do everything possible to ensure that the local authorities in Dublin and on the east coast are treated as statutory consultees in this process. Every Irish citizen can play a role in this process. I understand that any EC citizen can request that this license not be granted. In this situation Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution would then be obliged to hold a public inquiry. I would appeal to every local authority, community organisation and individual to become fully involved in this process and contact Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution making known their objections to the THORP plant.

Sellafield is a menance and its closure is the only solution. I congratulate the Government on their efforts to date in this regard and call on them again to pursue through every organisation and every forum possible the closure of Sellafield on behalf of all the Irish people.

Minister for Energy (Mr. Molloy)

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I thank Senator Haughey for raising this issue and giving me the opportunity to put the Government's position in relation to the current state of affairs at Sellafield on the record of this House. The House will be aware that I have continuously expressed the Government's concern to the United Kingdom authorities about the Sellafield plant and its discharges, about the new THORP plant and also the transport of radioactive material to and from the plant associated with Sellafield's operations.

The last time I spoke in the Seanad on Sellafield followed the discovery of radioactive seaweed on the beaches near Sellafield. Fortunately, as it turned out, there was no radiological hazard to this country from the contaminated items discovered on the Cumbrian beaches. The occurrence of yet another incident there recently relating to a spillage in the plutonium evaporator in the reprocessing plant has added to the long litany of incidents of concern about Sellafield's operations. I raised this matter with the UK Minister for Energy, Tim Eggar, and I have received a full reply from him.

The leak occurred in one of the top sections of the evaporator where the plutonium nitrate is in vapour form. The vapour escapes through a small hole and condenses into liquid which drips down the side of the vessel and then solidifies into a crystalline material on the outside of the evaporator and onto the floor of the cell in which the evaporator is completely enclosed. In all, between 600 and 800 grammes of plutonium spilled into the surrounding cell but there was no leakage of radioactivity into the environment. The consequence of that occurrence is the closure of the reprocessing operation until the end of the month when the necessary clean-up and repair operations will have been completed.

This incident did not result in an escape of radioactivity into the environment or plant working areas as the loss of liquid was limited to a containment cell. The UK authorities have told me that safety is paramount in the way repair work is planned and carried out. However, as I said earlier, this incident represented a serious plant malfunction at Sellafield and is a cause for concern.

All plant failures at Sellafield can only increase anxiety on this side of the Irish Sea, that some future failure may occur when safety systems may not work so effectively. It also heightens my concern about the hazards of reprocessing itself. I would like to recall that in the Dáil before the summer recess a resolution was unanimously passed reiterating its previous condemnation of the operation of British Nuclear Fuels and in particular the proposal to extend and develop reprocessing. Since then there has been no let up in the representations I have made at every opportunity and in every possible forum to secure the closure of Sellafield. I am particularly concerned about the intentions of British Nuclear Fuels to commission soon the THORP reprocessing plant, about the resultant increased levels of radioactive waste on site, the liquid and gaseous discharges that will result and the increase in nuclear material being transported to and from Sellafield.

The THORP plant will reprocess spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors, extracting uranium and plutonium for reuse in power generation. Approval was given for THORP by the UK Government in 1978 following a protracted public inquiry and parliamentary debates. I understand that agreements have been signed for reprocessing of spent fuel and other UK nuclear utilities and with Japanese, German and other foreign customers. The likely liquid and gaseous discharges from THORP were the subject of an examination recently by the European Community Commission which consulted a committee of experts drawn from all member states. The Commission's conclusion was that the plan for discharges from the THORP plant is not liable either in normal operation or in accident conditions to result in contamination significant from the point of view of health, water, soil or air space of another member state.

Notwithstanding this opinion the Government consider that all discharges into the marine and aerial environment from Sellafield should be prevented and eliminated by the use of the best available technology and environmental practices. This was the Government's position adopted at the recent ministerial meeting in Paris of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic. Subsequent to the Commission's opinion, British Nuclear Fuels made an application to the United Kingdom regulatory authorities, the UK's inspectorate of pollution, for new authorisation at the Sellafield site to take into account discharges from THORP. I have asked the UK authorities for documentation in relation to authorisations for increased discharges applied for by British Nuclear Fuels. I understand that consultations on draft authorisations will start soon and, when received, I will make appropriate views known to the UK authorities.

The Radiological Protection Institute will continue to closely monitor radiation levels in the Irish Sea. While the Institute's view is that there is no significant hazard, nevertheless I regard any radioactive discharges as a problem. In recent months I have written to the UK authorities expressing the strong opposition of the Irish Government to the continued operation and expansion of Sellafield and also concerning a proposed waste repository. I have also taken up the matter with the new EC Commissioner of the Environment, Karel Van Miert and I have also expressed my fears to the United Kingdom and Japanese authorities about the movement of radioactive materials to and from Sellafield. My Department will continue to raise these matters at all appropriate opportunities with the British authorities and in EC and international fora.

I have also been in contact with the British authorities to express my concern at the proposed shipment of plutonium and high level wastes in the Irish Sea as a direct consequence of international contracts for increased reprocessing at the THORP plant. In addition, I have asked the Japanese to arrange for the cessation of any such shipments between Japan and Sellafield. I have been told by the United Kingdom authorities that a shipment of plutonium from the United Kingdom to Japan is not scheduled for a few years. It is the United Kingdom's practice to process and return plutonium only if the recipient country adheres to the non-proliferation treaty and has an appropriate internationally recognised safeguards regime in force to prevent any diversion of material for non-peaceful uses.

I have been assured that all shipments will meet or exceed all relevant international standards. These include the use of containers designed to provide an extremely high degree of protection against fire, against impact and other dangers. These international standards are kept under constant review and regularly updated to take account of experience and keep pace with technical developments. The most recent revision was published in 1990. Actions open to the Government about such shipments are being considered. These actions involve seeking clarification of the proposed shipment routes in relation to Irish territorial waters and confirmation that internationally accepted practices on the safe shipment of radioactive materials are being observed. This involves liaison with my colleague, the Minister for the Marine who has responsibility in this area.

In relation to the underground waste repository which Senator Haughey spoke of in this House in May, the latest information I have is that Nirex is unlikely now to make a planning application before the second half of the decade. The company's investigations so far have met with complex geology and waterflows beneath Sellafield which need further research. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and the Geological Survey Office will monitor these developments and, of course, I will continue to express concerns about its location. The UK authorities have told me that an environmental impact assessment and a public inquiry will be an intrinsic part of any planning exercise.

All possible avenues for legal action against British Nuclear Fuels have been thoroughly investigated and no case has been identified so far. All those looked at have been confronted by the same obstacle, lack of sufficient evidence which would support a successful outcome. Although a legal case does not appear to be an option at the present time my officials will maintain a watching brief on any issues which might support calls for closure of the Sellafield plant. One such issue is a court case to be heard this month against British Nuclear Fuels by two former employees. The outcome of this case and the implications, if any, for the Irish public will be closely examined by my Department.

Finally, it continues to be the view of the Government that a European Community inspection force should be established which would ensure that uniform high standards are applied at nuclear installations throughout the Community and that any installations found to be unsafe are closed down. This applies to Sellafield.

Senator Haughey raised an issue which is not in the question that was addressed to me. I think it refers to a possible decision made in relation to business undertaken by the European Council of Finance Ministers, ECOFIN, and the matter raised would be the responsibility of another Minister.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 October 1992.