I have three Private Notice Questions addressed to me on the same subject matter, that is, the release of radioactive material near St. Petersburg. I am calling the Deputies in the order in which they submitted these questions to my office. I call, first, Deputy Mary Flaherty to put her question.
Private Notice Questions. - Russian Nuclear Plant Leak.
asked the Minister for Energy to make a statement on the nature and extent of the release of radioactive material near St. Petersburg and the level of environmental risk nationally or internationally that it presents.
asked the Minister for Energy to outline the urgent action he is taking at EC level to deal with the consequences of the nuclear leak at the Russian reactor near St. Petersburg.
asked the Minister for Energy the steps he is taking to arrange for an effective monitoring of radiation levels following the radiation leak adjacent to St. Petersburg, Russia; the improvements he has made to Ireland's monitoring and informatin systems since 1986 and whether he will issue any instructions to councils and the general public on self and animal protection should the leak prove to be serious.
I should say that I tabled my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs but I notice it has been transferred to the Minister for Energy.
I propose to answer the three Private Notice Questions together.
The Nuclear Energy Board have informed me that at 09.00 hours this morning the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna informed them of an incident which occurred at 2.37 a.m. local time in unit 3 of a four-unit nuclear plant situated near St. Petersburg, formerly known as Leningrad. The plant is of the same type as Chernobyl. The incident involved damage to and subsequent leakage from a fuel channel in the plant. The reactor was shut down in accordance with emergency procedures and indications are that it is being successfully cooled down. The incident has been classified as Level 3 on the seven-step International Nuclear Event Scale. Level 3 indicates that there has been a very small release to the local environment but public exposure is at a fraction of prescribed limits. On the basis of present information no risk is posed to anybody outside the local area.
The Nuclear Energy Board will be continuously monitoring the situation and the public will be kept informed as further information comes to hand.
At this juncture there are no grounds for calling for action at EC level in this instance. I have no doubt, however, that the situation is being monitored at EC and individual member state level and that specific action will be considered if the situation should warrant it. The Community is involved in ongoing measures, of course, to improve the safety of East European nuclear facilities.
Arrangements are in place in Ireland to monitor radioactivity levels and to give appropriate advice and assistance to the public, if the need for such measures should arise. At this juncture having regard to the information available, it is not anticipated that any such measures will be necessary.
I must ask for very brief questions and tell the House that I have six further Private Notice Questions addressed to the Minister for the Marine to deal with. I call on Deputy Flaherty for a very brief question.
I would like to ask the Minister two specific questions. Are his Department, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, satisfied that they have full access to all the necessary information to allow him and others give the assurances he has given to the House here? Would the Minister not accept that along with the Chernobyl incident, this incident indicates a very serious problem with eastern European installations? Does the Minister believe that adequate attention is being given to this matter at EC level so as to reduce the risk of future accidents?
We are relying on the International Atomic Energy Agency for information, and to be kept up to date on investigations which they are carrying out into this incident. The information I had before this incident was that operational procedures with regard to these reactors had been changed and that those changes were in place. Modifications to their design had been completed in some cases and were well advanced in all the others. The Nuclear Energy Board consider that these changes will make the reactors more stable and improve safety status. I am not saying that we can be fully satisfied with these measures, and if these reactors cannot reach acceptable levels of safety, they should be closed down.
I assure the House that we will keep the situation under constant review, and if there is need for any further action we will take whatever action we can as members of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is my intention to keep the public informed as to what information comes our way with regard to this incident.
The Minister mentioned that the reactor was of the same type as the one at Chernobyl. What does the Minister mean by his reference to the accident being of a Level 3 type, on a seven step scale? How does that compare to what happened at Chernobyl? Has the Minister put in place precautionary measures that could be immediately implemented in the event of the accident proving to be worse than it originally appeared, as was the case in Chernobyl? Is the Minister aware of the number of Irish citizens who are in or near St. Petersburg who might be affected by this accident? Are there any plans in place from the point of view of safeguarding their interests in the event of concern about the accident becoming more serious?
I am not aware if there were Irish citizens in the vicinity. I will check on that through the Department of Foreign Affairs——
Check with Aer Rianta as well.
——and any other relevant authority. These incidents are assessed on a scale similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes. The scale is from one to seven, with one being the least dangerous. An event at seven on this scale would be a major accident similar to what happened at Chernobyl in 1986. The top four points on the scale refer to nuclear accidents and the bottom three refer to incidents. No. 3 on the scale refers to a serious incident. A similar incident happened in Vandellos in Spain in 1989.
Would the Minister agree that the continuing long delay in setting up the Irish Radiological Protection Institute to take over from the Nuclear Energy Board is not what we want and that we need some action? The Minister did not reply to my question as to whether he had improved the monitoring and information system since 1986. Will he undertake to review the situation on Friday, before he goes home, and if this incident is not totally closed, to instruct the Nuclear Energy Board to keep staff on hand at the weekend to deal with public inquiries and with monitoring? This was not done at the time of the Chernobyl accident.
The House accepts that facilities and arrangements that were in place at the time of the Chernobyl accident were not adequate. That has been dealt with since then. An emergency plan for nuclear accidents based on the lessons learned from the Chernobyl accident has been drawn up by an interdepartmental committee and has been already approved by the Government. That plan will be published shortly.
It involves the deployment of a network of radiation monitoring devices around the country in order to detect any increase in radiation and pinpoint the areas seriously affected. A system is provided to enable notification of an accident abroad to be received and then the rapid calling together of a co-ordinating body. Following notification of, or the detection of raised radiation levels, the machinery is now in place to direct the response and the identification of the roles and functions of the various Government Departments and other bodies in the response to such an emergency. Much of the necessary equipment has been purchased and is operational. The Radiological Protection Institute will be established as and from 1 April. The new board have already been notified of their appointments. This does not make any difference however, because they are merely assuming the expanded role of the Nuclear Energy Board. The staff will be available at all times on a seven day a week basis to continue to monitor this and any other situation that arises.