Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Dec 1993

Vol. 138 No. 17

THORP Nuclear Reprocessing Plant: Statements.

Mr. Wright

On behalf of the Fianna Fáil group in the Seanad I want to put on the record of the House our opposition to and condemnation of the recent decision by the British Government to reopen the THORP Nuclear Reprocessing Plant. I offer our support to the Minister for Energy, Mr. Cowen, and the Government in their efforts to reverse this decision. Many of us at local authority and national level will add our weight to the opposition.

The country is united in its opposition to this decision. It is an ideal opportunity for the Minister and the Government to bring together politicians of all persuasions in the North in an effort to oppose it. This would be in keeping with the Joint Declaration last week.

I hope the Minister, in his efforts to reverse the decision about THORP, does not forget his opposition to the Sellafield plant. In his reply, perhaps he will address the issue of what legal action can be taken. I am sure the House will support the Minister and the Government in their efforts to reverse this decision.

Mr. Neville

I support the remarks by the Leader of the House. The strong views of the Irish people and Government were cast aside by the British Government last week. The announcement by the British Minister for the Environment on the commissioning of THORP on the same day as the historic framework for peace was announced by the Irish and British Governments was a cynical political exercise to distract the public from a potentially dangerous development that will have serious consequences for the health and safety of our people and cause irreparable damage to our environment. It is a tragedy that the right of self-determination, extended by Mr. John Major to the people of Ireland in the Joint Declaration, did not extend to the area of human health and environment.

On the issue of THORP, the British Government has ensured we will sustain all the costs in terms of the risks to our environment and health and enjoy none of the alleged benefits. As all other approaches have failed, the Government has a duty to take immediate legal action against the UK.

The British Government has ignored calls by the Government and others for a public inquiry. This cannot be taken without every route of protest and counteraction being taken by the Government. The concerns of the Irish people on this issue must be of immediate priority.

Operations at THORP will entail massive increases of radioactive discharges to the environment and will result in a tenfold increase in Sellafield's radioactive pollution which will cause many deaths from cancer each year. These operations will also increase the volume of the radioactive waste Sellafield processes by 189 times. In addition, they will produce 59 tonnes of plutonium over their first ten years, enough for over 7,300 atomic warheads, which will be spread throughout the nations of the world.

Every day since the early 1950s, the Sellafield reprocessing plant in the UK, operated by British Nuclear Fuels, has discharged nine million litres of low level nuclear waste into the Irish Sea through a two kilometre pipeline. As a result of these discharges, the Irish Sea is the most radioactive in the world. The operations at THORP will magnify the level of this radioactivity and present an unacceptable threat to the environment and human health. In addition, the production of plutonium at THORP represents a massive threat to global security.

These risks are being taken for a dangerous, polluting and expensive exercise that produces no benefits. The Government has a duty to use all means to stop this exercise, to protect the health of our people and the safety of our environment. The Fine Gael Party supports the Minister and the Government in any action it takes on this issue.

Mr. Wall

All people in Ireland, especially those living on the eastern seaboard are shocked at the decision by the British Government Minister, Mr. John Gummer, to allow the commissioning of THORP at Sellafied in West Cumbria. I urge the Government and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, to express the concern of the Irish people on this decision. I also urge him to use all the measures in his power, including the law courts in England and Europe, to have this decision reversed. The Minister can be assured of the support of all the Labour Party Senators in this respect.

I am pleased the Government did not opt for nuclear power when considering our energy needs. In this respect it is worth considering the experience of our nearest neighbour. The Sellafield plant has had a chequered history. Indeed, I believe there is no credible environmental or economic defence of Sellafield and any defence put forward by British Nuclear Fuels has been discredited.

There is a sense of urgency on this issue. The Government has less than 28 days in which to act before the British decision to allow the commissioning of THORP will have significant implications for our citizens living on the eastern seaboard. In addition, this is an issue to which local authorities in Counties Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Louth, Wicklow and Wexford will have to give serious consideration.

From an environmental viewpoint, the case against THORP is overwhelming. The emission levels of dangerous substances such as krypton and caesium will pollute the Irish Sea and pose a serious environmental threat to the citizens of Leinster. Not only will that sea become polluted with radioactive substances, it will become crowded with ships transporting such substances and with warships escorting them for protection. The Irish Sea will become the main channel for transporting dangerous nuclear material to and from the plant. We must do everything possible to stop the Irish Sea becoming a haven for vessels carrying such highly dangerous materials.

In the Dáil last week the Minister, Deputy Cowen, said the Government viewed the decision as a grave disappointment and would continue to oppose Sellafield and the nuclear energy option in general. The Minister said the question of legal action is under constant review. I urge the Government to take such action through the British and European courts. This issue is of such importance to the Irish people that we must use every means in our power to have the decision reversed, including legal means.

Mr. Norris

I join with the other Senators who have spoken in strong support of the Minister's action on this issue. The British are behaving once more as bad neighbours and bad Europeans. The THORP nuclear reprocessing plant and all the facilities there have contributed to making the Irish Sea probably the most radioactively contaminated in the world. This has serious repercussions for the health, welfare and industry of the Irish people.

It also causes people to have serious doubts about buying Irish fish products. There are all the old stories about fish in the Irish Sea having two and a half heads. I ordered a rather nice plate of prawns in a restaurant recently and a friend asked me how I could possibly eat them. I asked why and he said they probably came from the Irish Sea and if I ate one and put my elbow through a pane of glass, I would see an X-ray of my arm. That was an amusing way of expressing people's genuine fears of radioactive contamination.

I agree with Senator Neville that the British Government was cynical in using a dramatic moment in the development of relations between these two countries to make this announcement, knowing it would get smaller headlines. I am sure the Minister will not be deterred from making the strongest possible protest to the British and taking whatever legal action is possible. Unfortunately it is not clear how strong a case can be made. I hope it can be sustained but the problem is getting sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate convincingly that there is a real and established danger from this plant. I and the Irish people feel there is but in scientific and legal terms it may not be as easy to establish this danger as the public might imagine.

One comes across the fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc: that is, although something may happen after an event, in science and in law one cannot assume a direct causal relationship. The fact that there have been demonstrated to be higher levels of cancer and higher incidence of birth defects in the area surrounding Sellafield and on the east coast of Ireland has not been sufficiently strong evidence to prove a necessary causal relationship. Perhaps we can establish a sufficiently strong case. I hope the Minister has taken steps to ensure the proper authorities in Ireland are scientifically monitoring events in order to build such a case.

British Nuclear Fuels have a very well paid public relations organisation which tries to counter any campaign such as that contemplated by the Minister. Those people will say the levels of radiation anticipated from the new facility are much smaller and more marginal than the public is led to believe. I do not think that matters all that much because what is at stake here is not the normal emissions that one assumes will be produced by this plant but the accident record of British Nuclear Fuels and the moral record of that company as well. If one looks back over the series of accidents that have occurred and their magnitude and seriousness, which have been concealed from the public and diminished by British Nuclear Fuels, then we really have serious cause for concern. I would like to remind the House that it has now been established that during the 1950s, for example, the predecessors of this group made arrangements to allow significant releases of radiation into the atmosphere in order to experiment upon the ordinary British and, presumably, Irish public. This kind of behaviour shows that group of companies to be morally irresponsible.

People are rightly concerned abut radiation because one of its most sinister aspects is that it represents an invisible threat. We all remember the explosion at Chernobyl in Russia and the fact that we assumed we could not be affected by it because we were so far away. We then started to get reports of levels of radiation in our sheep and significant increases in the radiation doses absorbed by people in our cities. We were absolutely unaware of this until we were reminded of this sinister fact by the national and international monitoring services. The other sinister aspect of nuclear radiation is that many of these elements have such a disastrously long half-life. It does not evaporate, is not biodegradable and cannot be assumed to diminish rapidly with time. It is in the environment for a long time.

I strongly support the Minister in establishing the best possible case. I encourage the Minister, if it is feasible and if he can be convinced of a positive result, to take the British Government to court. I hope he will be able to establish a strong and effective case.

Mr. Dardis

It is fair to say that the message coming from Seanad Éireann to the British Government is unanimous and explicit. The decision of 15 December by the British Secretary of State for Environment and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — I am not sure what he has to do with this — to commission the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield is not acceptable to this country. One must query the timing of this announcement. It came at a time when, happily, the two Governments were making tremendous progress in terms of bringing peace to Northern Ireland. We had this announcement in the middle of that process. One would have to question the motive of those who made the announcement on that day.

I note from press reports that the Minister in the Dáil made some statements about the Attorney General's advice and said there was no point in proceeding with the case unless there was sufficient evidence. Could the Minister explain that in greater detail? What is the basis for saying that we should not proceed with a case? If we do not proceed through the European Court, is it possible for the Government to proceed under British law to try to prevent this plant from opening, or at least to slow it down? The potential for destruction here is enormous. It is much greater than what has happened in Northern Ireland, and all of us regret what has happened there. There is an identity of interest between those in Northern Ireland and the Republic in terms of how they should respond to this matter because it affects the health, welfare and well being of all on this island.

I note that the Chief Executive of the Radiological Protection Institute, Dr. Tom O'Flaherty, who is an eminent scientist, said that the Irish people's exposure to radiation by the operation of THORP would be increased, but the added risk to health would be quite small. I do not think "quite small" in a nuclear sense is good enough; it should be nil. He goes on to say something even more significant and worrying. He said the real worry was what would happen in the event of an accident; if such a mishap was serious enough it could cause "significant contamination" here. This is the issue.

I note that the public inquiry in Britain, according to a press release from the British Embassy, was initiated in 1977. Technology has advanced at such a rate since then that one would have to question the findings of a public inquiry held at that time. Since then, there has been consultation, not an inquiry. According to the statement a public consultation was held, following which the inspectorates — who came from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, very highly qualified people, I am sure, in terms of nuclear physics — reported that the draft authorisations would "effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain and the environment generally". One has to question the credentials of the people who engaged in that consultation process. It is noteworthy that 42,500 people responded to the consultation and that at its conclusion, it was decided not to instigate a hearing or public inquiry. That is highly regrettable, given the significance of this lethal and filthy industry.

Another question arises, which is not about the operation of THORP, rather the safety in the transport of materials to it, whether by sea or rail. All it needs is one accident to create huge health problems here. Even in the absence of such an accident, one must query the effect of the plant on the health and welfare of the people living along the east coast of Ireland and the island as a whole.

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

I wish to thank Senators for the valuable contributions they made to this very controversial subject of the commissioning of THORP, the newly built thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield in West Cumbria.

An Seanad will be aware that last Wednesday in London, on a day which was otherwise historic in progressing matters relating to Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. John Gummer, MP, announced his decision to allow commissioning of the THORP reprocessing plant.

On hearing the news, the Government expressed deep disappointment and our ambassador in London immediately conveyed the Government's very strong views on the matter to Mr. Gummer. It was made perfectly clear that the Government was particularly concerned that the British authorities had not acceded to the many requests made to them by this Government, and other numerous interested parties, for a public inquiry into all issues related to the plant before a decision was taken authorising its commissioning.

Mr. Gummer was told that it is still the Government's view that a full, open inquiry, in which all contentious environmental and wider policy issues concerning THORP's justification and economics, and also nuclear proliferation matters, could be subjected to vigorous and independent debate and close scrutiny, is the only process which would command widespread public confidence. Mr. Gummer was also asked to convey these views to the Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, and to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Dr. Gillian Shephard.

It is regrettable that the British authorities in their evaluation of THORP did not recognise, even at this late stage, that fundamental changes have occurred in the nuclear industry since the 1978 Parker Inquiry into THORP, when approval was finally given for its construction. Uranium is now cheap and in great supply. The fast breeder reactor programme, for which plutonium was to be used, is now non-existent and nuclear power has not emerged as the cheap and safe option it was hoped to be in earlier days. There have been serious accidents at Chernobyl and at Three Mile Island which have affected public opinion and the demand for nuclear power. In addition, no real progress has been made in arriving at an environmentally acceptable and safe solution to the long term waste storage and disposal problems, to which the nuclear industry gives rise.

The UK Ministers, however, in their decision last Wednesday, agreed there is a sufficient balance of advantage in favour of the operation of THORP and that the activities giving rise to the discharges permitted by the authorisations are justified. British Nuclear Fuels has insisted that the plant is an excellent example of a safe and successful high-technology, export-oriented British business. As I said in my submission, the Government's view is that reprocessing at THORP is not justified, on environmental, strategic or economic grounds. I consider the decision to open THORP was not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. The creation of more plutonium, added to the abundant excess already round the world, increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation in today's increasingly unstable world with the attendant danger of theft or sabotage by terrorists. There are also concerns about shipments of spent fuel and plutonium to and from Japan and other countries. Spent nuclear fuel could be more safely managed and controlled in a purpose built on-site dry storage facility rather than shipped and then recycled through reprocessing. Storage is also cheaper than reprocessing according to many authoritative sources. On the past record of Sellafield, and the global nuclear industry generally, it is too simplistic to state that THORP is a safe business.

It is a grave disappointment that, despite the Government's objections to the THORP plant set out in the two comprehensive submissions to the UK authorities during 1993, the concerns expressed by other European Environment Ministers, for example, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, the Netherlands and the Isle of Man, and a large number of objections received in the second public consultation process — 63 per cent of submissions were opposed to THORP — the British Government is determined to press ahead with the operation of THORP primarily for its straightforward financial benefits to BNFL and the UK's balance of payments as well as for job retention purposes in the depressed local West Cumbrian region.

While the implementation of processing contracts between BNFL and its UK and foreign customers may underwrite the financial viability of the THORP plant and benefit the depressed local Cumbrian economy there are no perceivable overall economic benefits to be derived from recycling recovered uranium and plutonium. While Ministers claim to have considered the wider aspects of THORP, the process of interdepartmental consultation in Whitehall and contacts with relevant public bodies on the issues falling within their competence is not sufficient. As I said, it is regrettable that the opportunity was not taken to have a public inquiry where all the issues, including an environmental impact assessment, could be evaluated under the glare of full debate and cross-examination in the light of circumstances now prevailing rather than those of 17 years ago. I have learnt that 12,300 respondents in the consultation process sought a public inquiry or a hearing. It is not convincing to say that no new issues were raised in the consultation process when it is clear to everybody that circumstances have changed considerably.

Noticeably absent from documentation received from the UK Secretary of State, associated with his decision last Wednesday, is publication of an important Touche Ross report on the plant's economic prospects. Also, no information has been placed in the public domain about the exact terms of the contracts for foreign fuel. These are important documents which need public scrutiny to make an informed judgment on the economies of the project. In my submission last October, based on the limited information publicly available, I made the claim that the economic case was suspect. This has not been clearly refuted. Also, apparently there is no clear resolution yet of the issue of waste substitution, whereby small amounts of high-level waste could be returned in exchange for retention of large amounts of low and medium level waste in Britain which would ultimately have to be disposed of in the UK, greatly increasing the volume of waste.

The voluminous documentation received from the UK Secretary of State is being studied by officials in my Department and the Radiological Protection Institute to assess the rationale for granting the discharge authorisations and the details of their terms. Particular attention will be given to the effect of the amendments of the Secretary of State to the originally proposed authorisations and the specific overall discharge limits to be imposed. The effectiveness of measures requiring British Nuclear Fuels plc to report annually on further discharge reductions and on its forward research and development for krypton abatement technology will be carefully examined. Actual performance by BNFL in compliance with these discharge restrictions and other adjustments will be closely monitored.

Despite adjustments in the discharges, there is no doubt that the operation of the plant will increase the risk of exposure of the Irish public through increased discharges and possible accidents. In addition there is considerable uncertainty as regards the ultimate means of disposal of the ever growing amount of waste accumulating at Sellafield. This waste on one site comes not only from UK nuclear activities but from those of many other countries also, and its final disposal in a manner that will be permanently environmentally safe has not been resolved.

Because the THORP decision will inevitably increase the anxiety already felt by the public about Sellafield, I have also asked the Institute to expand its programme of testing of levels of radioactive contamination of the marine and aerial environment and to monitor the levels of exposure of the Irish population to radiation arising from its start-up. Special equipment has recently been installed at the Institute's laboratories to monitor atmospheric levels of Krypton-85 gas which is the main contributor to the increase in atmospheric discharges resulting from THORP. The Institute has already estimated that in full operation, and assuming that discharges will be at the maximum authorised levels, the radiation dose to the most exposed member of the Irish public will be about 20 per cent greater from operations at Sellafield than at present. It will still represent no more than 0.2 per cent of a person's present total radiation dose from all sources of radiation, the great bulk of which are natural. However, this fact does not ease the fears of the public about THORP particularly in view of the addition it will make to already large plutonium stockpiles, with the proliferation risk which this entails, and also the shipment of radioactive waste through the Irish Sea and the accident risk associated with this.

As I have already said, it is a grave disappointment that, despite widespread concerns and reservations about THORP, it is now to be allowed to open by the UK authorities. The Government will maintain their complete opposition to nuclear operations at Sellafield and to any further expansion of the complex. The UK Secretary of State has already indicated that any court proceedings against the operation of THORP would be resisted vigorously and in his view a court could not but be impressed by the care and attention devoted to the process of arriving at the decision to proceed with THORP. The question as to what legal action this Government could now take regarding the THORP plant is, of course, being kept under constant consideration and review. The Government remains committed to maintaining all diplomatic and international pressure on the British authorities and, if the opportunity arises, to initiating appropriate legal action, but only if there is a sufficiently good chance that such proceedings would succeed.

In relation to a remark made by Senator Norris, I would emphasise that people should not have any concerns about eating fish from the Irish Sea. The Radiological Protection Institute is continually monitoring fish, and has assured me that eating Irish Sea fish does not represent a health hazard. Radiation doses are very low, as low as 0.1 per cent of internationally accepted limits.

Senator Neville spoke of the right to self-determination having been extended by the British Prime Minister. I would remind the Senator that is our inalienable right and we have simply drawn up an agreement as to how we intend exercising that right in future.