asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy the type, age, capacity, method of waste disposal and safety precautions obtaining at the nuclear power station at Wylfa in Anglesea, if officials of his Department have visited this station and the procedures established for liaison with public authorities here in the event of an accident.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - British Nuclear Power Station.
9.
I understand from the Nuclear Energy Board, who are my advisers on nuclear energy, that the power station referred to by the Deputy consists of two gas-cooled graphite moderated Magnox reactors, using uranium metal fuel rods contained in magnesium alloy, magnox, cans. These reactors are in commercial operation since November 1971 and January 1972 respectively. The design capacity of each reactor is 590 MW, giving a maximum station capacity of 1,180 MW. The current maximum capacity is 990 MW and the station normally operates at a power output between 830 and 990 MW.
Spent fuel containing the highly radioactive waste products is, on removal from the reactors, stored at Wylfa for a period normally less than one year and then transferred in specially designed transport casks to the Windscale Works near Seascale in Cumbria for reprocessing. Low-level solid radioactive wastes produced during the operation of the nuclear power station are processed and normally stored at Wylfa. As the quantity and radioactive contents are low, storage does not present problems. Small quantities of low-level gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents are discharged to the atmosphere and the Irish Sea in accordance with authorisations issued by the UK authorities through their licensing and control arrangements. The quantities so discharged are very low and not of significance.
All nuclear activities in the United Kingdom are subject to strict statutory safety controls.
Officials of the Nuclear Energy Board have visited the Wylfa nuclear power station and are familiar with its operating and safety procedures.
I am advised by the Nuclear Energy Board that the probability of an incident at this power station which would represent a hazard to this country is remote and that it is not necessary to develop special precautions here. Close co-operation and liaison with the relevant UK regulatory agencies is maintained by the board and contact is maintained with the UK authorities to ensure that we are kept fully informed of nuclear incidents at this or other stations in the UK.
Is the Minister aware that this station is only 60 miles from Dublin which is the centre with the highest population in the country? Is there any continuing system of monitoring safety at that station and of adequacy of waste disposal from a safety point of view by the personnel responsible?
I am aware that the station is only 60 miles from Dublin and also that it has been in operation for upwards of eight years. The Nuclear Energy Board have visited the station and have visited some of the other numerous UK nuclear stations and are satisfied regarding the level of controls that are exercised by the UK authorities. They are satisfied, too, with the level of co-operation from the UK authorities.
Would the Minister not agree that the public would not be assured sufficiently by one visit to this station which took place perhaps six years ago? Would public opinion not require that there be regular visits by Irish personnel to this station, perhaps once a year at least, for the purpose of ensuring that the safety conditions which may have existed at one time continue to exist?
I cannot say how regular the visits are.
Have they been regular?
The Nuclear Energy Board inform me that they are satisfied that the authorities in the UK are taking the steps that are appropriate and necessary.
Is the Minister satisfied in relation to safety and would he undertake to have sufficient interest in the matter to require the Nuclear Energy Board to set up a permanent system of visits to this station to ensure that there is safety?
As I have not visited the station personally I am not in a position to comment on it and even if I had been there I am not sure whether I would have understood the technicalities involved.
Should the Minister not have a greater interest in this matter and ensure that there are regular visits to Wyfla and to other nuclear stations in Britain by Irish personnel?
The UK authorities have an infinitely greater interest in ensuring that this and other nuclear stations in Britain do not present any safety hazard. They have undertaken to notify us immediately in the event of any problem arising. I am confident that they would honour that undertaking.
Regarding the disposal of waste from this plant into the Irish sea, is the Minister satisfied that this operation into the saucer-shaped Irish Sea indefinitely through Windscale is a satisfactory method of disposal in view of the fact that the plutonium readings in the Irish Sea adjacent to Windscale are many times the level that applies in other parts of the Irish Sea and in open water generally?
The Deputy is not correct in saying that the waste from this station goes into the Irish Sea by way of Windscale. I said that very low levels of liquid effluent which are of no significance are discharged into the Irish Sea in accordance with authorisation. The main radioactive waste from Wylfa goes to Windscale as, so far as I know, is the procedure regarding waste from the other British nuclear plants.
Does the effluent from Windscale not go into the Irish Sea?
The question relates to Wylfa. The Nuclear Energy Board have continued to monitor constantly nuclear levels in the Irish Sea and they are satisfied regarding the aspect of safety.
Have the authorities here exercised any function in supervising the disposal of low-level nuclear waste into the Irish Sea? Is the Minister aware that there is any responsibility in relation to this?
This question relates to Wylfa in Anglesea, Wales, not Ireland.
Have we no function at all?