Vol. 375 No. 6
asked the Minister for Energy the action, if any, he has taken on behalf of the Government to communicate formally and officially to the British authorities with respect to the British Nuclear Fuels proposal for disposal of radioactive waste at an undersea location off the Cumbrian coast; if he will make the text of the communication available to the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
20.
asked the Minister for Energy the representations, if any, he has made to the British authorities regarding the proposal by British Nuclear Fuels to construct caverns under the Irish Sea for the storage of nuclear waste; the response which has been received from the British Government; the measures, if any, he intends to take if British Nuclear Fuels insist on proceeding with this plan in view of the enormous health and environmental consequences for the Irish people; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
62.
asked the Minister for Energy if he has requested the Nuclear Energy Board to prepare an assessment of the state of the Magnox nuclear power generation plant at Sellafield; its present age and relative standard of safety and efficiency with reference to conventional power plants; the steps, if any, which will now be taken in order to provide for its orderly and environmentally safe decommissioning, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
63.
asked the Minister for Energy the progress which will be made within the next 12 months towards each of the Government's objectives of (1) closing reprocessing and power generation activities at Sellafield (2) closing Magnox nuclear reactors in the UK which are now operating beyond their design life (3) getting Britain to abandon its plans for undersea storage of intermediate waste at Sellafield and (4) getting Britain to change the location of their planned increases in nuclear capacity.
64.
asked the Minister for Energy if the Government intend to initiate proceedings against Britain in the European Court or some other appropriate international body regarding Britain's continued pollution of the Irish Sea with nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
65.
asked the Minister for Energy the number of representations he has made, both directly to the British Government, and to other Governments and the European Community, in relation to the closure of Sellafield; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
71.
asked the Minister for Energy the course of action he is taking at present to press for the closure of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant; if he has satisfied himself that all measures open to him in pursuit of that objective are being availed of; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
85.
asked the Minister for Energy if he has secured the discontinuance of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea by British Nuclear Fuels Limited; and the action, if any, he proposes to take on the issue.
86.
asked the Minister for Energy if he will give details of the Government's official policy concerning radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea.
As the House is aware, the Government are taking every possible action to seek the closure of Sellafield. We see this as the only answer to lack of confidence in the safety of the plant and to the continuing discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea. In April this year I wrote to the then UK Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Peter Walker, MP, calling for the elimination of discharges from Sellafield and its closure as soon as possible. The NEB had advised me that the four nuclear reactors at Calder Hall, which are located within the Sellafield complex, are on average 30 years old; that they do not have secondary containment systems and that the reactors fall appreciably short of modern safety standards. Consequently, I expressed concern about the safety of UK reactors, especially the old Magnox reactors which were not designed to meet modern safety standards and which have now surpassed their original operational life expectancy. I requested that such reactors, particularly those at Calder Hall and Chapel Cross, be phased out. I repeated these calls at my meeting with Mr. Parkinson on 16 September last.
We have established close ties with the Isle of Man Government which shares many of our concerns about the UK nuclear industry, particularly Sellafield. On 25 September last, I met with the Isle of Man Chief Minister and also their Minister for the Environment. We agreed to co-operate in every way possible on these matters. Gwynedd County Council in Wales have similar concerns. A delegation from the county council were met by officials of my Department on 9 November last. It was agreed that contacts would be established on matters of mutual concern.
Prior to the meeting of the Paris Commission last June, I carried out an intensive international lobbying campaign for the closure of Sellafield and for support for our recommendation for its closure, which we had submitted to the Paris Convention. At a ministerial meeting of the International Energy Agency on 11 May, I sought support for our position from most of the Ministers representing countries which are party to the Paris Convention. I also had meetings with ambassadors of the Nordic countries seeking their support. While agreement on our recommendation for the closure of Sellafield could not be reached at the Paris Commission meeting, considerable support and sympathy for our position was expressed. I intend to pursue this issue again at next year's meeting of the commission and I will continue my lobbying campaign towards this end.
However, in relation to radioactive discharges, significant progress was made at this year's meeting of the Paris Commission. A recommendation which I tabled, concerning the application of the best available technology to minimise and to eliminate, as soon as possible, any pollution caused by radioactive discharges into the marine environment, was adopted by the commission. On the basis of another Irish proposal it was agreed to establish a provisional system for the reporting of unplanned discharges from nuclear installations. Ireland, acting as a lead country, undertook to examine this system to see if it could be improved.
The proposal of British Nuclear Fuels to construct caverns under the Irish Sea for the storage of nuclear waste is completely repugnant to the Government. At my recent meeting with Mr. Parkinson, I stressed the total opposition of the Irish Government and people to this proposal and I called on Mr. Parkinson to prevent British Nuclear Fuels from proceeding with it. Although this is just one of the options being considered in the UK, I emphasised to Mr. Parkinson that I intended to raise the issue at every available forum including the EC and the London Dumping Convention.
The Government are also opposed to any expansion of the UK's nuclear industry which could cause a further threat to the health and safety of the Irish people. I have made this clear to the UK Government both in my letter to Mr. Walker and also at my meeting with Mr. Parkinson when I requested that any proposed new nuclear plants along Britain's west coast should not be built.
It is the Government's intention to continue their campaign on issues of nuclear safety, to seek the closure of plants which are considered to pose a danger to the health and safety of people in this country and the discontinuance of the idea of constructing caverns for the storage of nuclear waste under the Irish sea. If we fail to achieve our objectives through bilateral and international discussions, I will review all other possible courses of action to pursue our legitimate demands.
With regard to Question No. 18, would the Minister not agree that it would be preferable that nuclear waste should always be stored as far as possible on the site where it originates? What are his views on the storage of nuclear waste in undersea caverns? He has said that he is against that because if it is stored in an undersea cavern the danger is that it is not recoverable. It will remain radioactive for thousands of years and we have no way of ensuring in an undersea storage system that it would be recoverable and capable of being dealt with or neutralised in the event of something happening in the distant future. Consequently, will he continue to exercise pressure to ensure that no such storage proposal will get off the ground or come into being?
That is only one of the concerns in regard to the recoverable aspect. I am also concerned about further pollution of the sea. Leaving aside the recoverability in the event of any incident, the very existence of the undersea store could contaminate our seas further. The Deputy can be assured that I will use every available opportunity to lobby against this proposal. I have had discussions in the last fortnight with Mr. Clinton Davis, EC Commissioner for environmental issues and I lobbied there again for an EC inspectorate and brought to his attention the proposals of the UK Government. I raised the matter again at a ministerial meeting in Copenhagen recently and expressed the concern of the Irish Government at this proposal. The Deputy and the House can be assured that no opportunity will be lost and we will avail ourselves of every possible opportunity in this regard.
It is now apparent that the British authorities consider the Irish Sea their entire domain and central to their plans for waste and sewage disposal. In view of the rather poor response the Irish Government have had from the Paris Commission and endorsing the Government's position with regard to finding the British attitude to the Irish Sea and the dumping of waste there completely repugnant, would the Minister consider it appropriate for us to commence proceedings before the European Court of Justice under the provisions of EURATOM as being the only effective way we will ever get the British Government to respond to any of our demands regarding the use of the Irish Sea as a wastage disposal area?
I do not accept what the Deputy said in regard to our lack of success. We succeeded for the first time ever in having a resolution passed. The best available technology had to be used in these plants at Sellafield.
Regarding the response of the British Government, I will continue to lobby them. With regard to alternatives and legal action, the Deputy may not be aware that the Government recently decided to associate themselves with Luxembourg in a case they are taking against the French in relation to discharges from a new plant being built on the Luxembourg border. This is the first time the Government have taken this sort of initiative. Therefore, I would not close off the possibility of further legal action. I do not want to say at this stage that we will take that road immediately. We have already linked ourselves to one European case on this which is further advance than if we were ourselves to start at this stage on a case. We hope that we will get some results from that Luxembourg case.
I realise the importance of this question but I am also concerned that we have encroached for some considerable time into the time available for Priority Questions. I would be grateful if Deputies would assist me in dealing with these questions as expeditiously as possible.
This question is down nominated for priority in my name and I want to ask the Minister——
I was hoping to reach that question, Deputy.
Can I ask one brief supplementary and I will withdraw on the matter?
Thank you, Deputy.
Will the Minister join with the Nordic countries in seeking to extend the North Sea Conference to cover the Irish Sea with a view to extending the management programme for the North Sea to the Irish Sea? Much of the waste discharged travels through the atmosphere and the sea itself into the Nordic domain and they are concerned to have some say. Will the Minister join and support them in their case in that?
I have already had negotiations with the Nordic Ambassadors on this. The Deputy can be assured of my continued interest in the possibilities of formally associating with them in relation to their North Sea case. On the flow of water through the Irish Sea much of the pollution from Sellafield and other places ends up in the North Sea. We are conscious of the potential of involvement with the Nordic countries in this area. For example, the Icelanders have been particularly supportive of us in our battle on Sellafield and we are conscious of their support.
Deputy Pat O'Malley.
On a point of order, I trust that I will be permitted some latitude on my three Priority Questions.
You will, Deputy, if time permits. I have asked the House for its co-operation. Deputy O'Malley's Question No. 71 has been replied to and consequently will not go up again in Priority Questions so I am allowing him another supplementary or two.
Would the Minister not agree that the actions taken so far by the Government in relation to the call for the closure of Sellafield have not been effective? He has outlined various courses of action which have been taken, but obviously they have not resulted in the closure of Sellafield or anything near to that. I ask him to consider other forms of action that are available to him of which he has not availed. Those four courses of action are in the legal area. Deputy McCartan referred to one of them under the EURATOM Treaty under Articles 37 and 38 under which the Minister has available a process whereby he can apply for directives to be imposed on plants such as Sellafield to control the level of radioactivity which emanates from such plants. We have never sought for such directives to be applied. If directives are handed down and are ignored, we have the automatic facility of bringing the offenders before the European Court and forcing them to comply with a directive requiring the operators of the plant to set minimum standards for radioactive waste. Why does the Minister not proceed along those lines, given that his actions to date, while they are worthwhile in themselves, have not achieved positive results?
I do not accept the last point. In regard to the Paris meeting, we achieved a major step forward in raising the matter of the use of the best available technology in relation to pollution from nuclear plants.
It has no timescale.
I raised with the Commissioner for Energy and twice with the Commissioner for the Environment, as recently as ten days ago, the question of the Commission bringing forward the type of proposals the Deputy is speaking about under the Euratom Treaty. I want to see an inspectorate which will monitor the operations of and emissions from these plants on a proper basis, rather than depending on the health and safety operations in various countries. Every possible action at European level is being taken. The Government have also taken court action. A case is already proceeding at the European Court on the question of emissions from nuclear plants. This is the Luxembourg v. France case. Because it is so far advanced we have decided to associate ourselves with the Luxembourg case. This is the quickest means.
