asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to outline what information, if any, he has regarding the leak of radioactive material in the Sellafield nuclear plant last Thursday; if he had received any report from the British authorities on the leak; what steps are being taken to monitor any possible impact on the environment in this country and if he will make a statement on the matter?
Private Notice Questions. - Sellafield Radiation Leak.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if, in view of the latest leak of significant quantities of radiation from Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant over the past weekend, he will give details of the steps, if any, he and the Government are taking to deal with this urgent and serious problem and if he will make further representations to the British authorities in this regard in view of the danger to public health.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the measures, if any, the Government intends to take following the recent leak of radioactive material from the Sellafield nuclear plant.
I propose to take the three Private Notice Questions together.
My Department was informed by the Radioactive Substances Division of the UK Department of the Environment at 17.15 hrs on Friday, 12 February 1992 of a radioactive discharge from Sellafield which took place on Thursday, 11 February. Increased alpha discharges from building 204 chimney stack were detected. The source is believed to be from building 203, which is known to be contaminated. There are several ventilation lines from building 203 which are discharged through the building 204 stack. Building 203 is an old, obsolete building which ceased operation during the eighties and is undergoing preparatory work prior to decommissioning. It was a plutonium purification plant.
According to the initial report, the current best estimate of the likely discharge is 1,000 mega becquerels; the permitted annual maximum is 4,300 mega becquerels. Further information was received on Monday, 15 February, at 16.00 hrs from the British Embassy, Dublin, who had received this material directly from BNFL. This information stated that activity levels returned to normal parameters by Saturday afternoon, 13 February, and that there had been no breach of existing statutory discharge authorisations.
Preliminary assessments indicate that the discharge equated to 25 per cent of the annual stack discharge limit. The Radiological Protection Institute in Ireland has a network of seven continuous air sampling stations in operation. Air filters from two of these stations, Dublin and Clones, have been analysed using total alpha beta counting and high resolution gamma spectroscopy. Whilst the analyses are continuing, no increased radiation levels have been detected and it is not expected that any will be detected. There is, therefore, no risk to the health and safety of the Irish public. The institute, however, will keep the situation under continuous review.
My Department has sought more detailed information on the incident from the UK authorities — for example, the radionuclides involved in the discharge. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate visited the site on Saturday, 13 February, to investigate the background to the release. Building 203 is a redundant building which has been shut down for ten years. I understand that, as part of the preparatory work on decommissioning, a small amount of alpha emitting radioactive material was disturbed and emitted into the atmosphere. It is estimated that from the start of the incident to date about 1,000 mega becquerels of activity has been released. The most recent results show that emissions are down to about 20 mega becquerels over a 24 hour period. According to the UK Minister for the Environment the incident is regarded as serious, although it is well within safety limits. I understand that the incident will be the subject of a full investigation with further visits to the site by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the NII. The UK Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspectors will also be taking samples around the site perimeter.
I wrote today to Mr. David McLean, Minister of State, UK Department of the Environment, expressing my concern at the delay in BNFL reporting the incident to his Department, which in turn led to a delay in my Department being informed of the incident. I have again reiterated my concern at the safety of the entire plant and again called for its closure. This incident, like the leakage of plutonium from an evaporator at the Sellafield site which took place in September of last year, raises justified fears about the safety standards at Sellafield. This includes past, current and proposed operations. I repeat that the policy of this Government is that we want Sellafield shut down. Our concerns regarding its continued operation are and have been constantly raised at all relevant international fora.
It is my wish and that of the Government that all discharges of radioactivity from Sellafield be eliminated. The Government also objects to any extension to the Sellafield plant and in this context I am particularly concerned about the bringing on stream of the THORP plant. The bringing on stream of this plant represents an additional and unnecessary risk to the health and safety of the Irish population. The Government is also concerned about shipments of spent fuel and plutonium through the Irish Sea. Thorp was originally given the go-ahead in 1977, when nuclear power was still generally believed to have a prosperous future and reprocessing was thought to be a key factor in the uranium fuel cycle. Today the arguments are not convincing. The anticipated expansion of nuclear power has not materialised and the plutonium and uranium recovered from spent fuel are no longer required for reasons of economy or security of supply.
Deputies will be aware that I have called for the UK authorities to hold a public inquiry on THORP which would deal with the basis for operating the plant. I consider that the draft discharge authorisations should incorporate crypton 85 gas removal technology and the proposed discharge limits for other gaseous and also liquid wastes are excessive. The views contained in the Government's submission regarding THORP are without prejudice to the Government's wish to see all reprocessing at the Sellafield complex shut down.
We are asked to be assured that there is no risk to health and safety and that the extent of the leak was within statutory limits. I ask the Minister how we can be so sure of that, given that BNFL did not report the leak until 24 hours after it occured, that the report of the leak did not reach the Minister's Department until 26 hours after it occurred and that it was not inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate until two days after the leak occurred?
As I said in my reply, a full inquiry is being undertaken with the UK authorities in relation to this incident. Further information will become available at that stage. I agree, as has been general Government policy, that we do not wish to see Sellafield continuing and we have made that very clear. We have within our own Radiological Protection Institute readings which were taken from our stations and which show that the level is not such as to cause alarm. That is not to say we will not continue to monitor the situation and seek further information. When any further information becomes available we will make it available.
Does the Minister consider it satisfactory that a quarter of the whole annual limit for discharge for a year should take place in a period of 48 hours or less? Is he aware that the British propose to reduce the 4,000 per annum figure to 1,000, so what happened over that weekend is the equivalent of what will shortly be the annual discharge figure happening in a period of 48 hours? On the question of our stations, it fortunately happened for us that the wind over the weekend was not easterly. If it were the story would be very different indeed.
I accept, as I said in my reply, this has been a serious incident. I take the point that 1,000 mega becquerels is a discharge which would certainly have cause for concern. I am also aware that the limits at present are 4,300 and may change. The point I wish to get across is that, from our monitoring the situation is as I have given it: there is not cause for concern at this stage. It would be wrong of us to be alarmist about it. I take on board that it is a serious incident. We have made our views on the matter very clear to the UK authorities. It is an area of policy where there is unanimity on all sides of the house.
Has the Minister established whether the Sellafield authorities were in breach of international law by waiting 24 hours before reporting the incident? Furthermore, could he explain to the House why it took him until today to register a protest by means of a letter to the British authorities? Does he consider this sufficient to protect the lives of Irish people?
The communication delivered to the UK authorities by us is on the basis of information which is now available from our own stations. It is important that we take readings from our own stations before we do anything else. It is all part of the information that has come to us today from the British Embassy. We have made clear, and I have made clear in my reply, the concerns we have in relation to that situation and we will continue to monitor it closely. We await the outcome of the UK inquiry which is now taking place into this matter.
I want to confine questions to the Deputies who tabled them. I cannot allow questions from all Deputies in the House at this late stage in our proceedings.
You can if you want to, Sir.
I could but I shall not do so. We do not want to make a mockery of Question Time. I shall entertain a very brief question from the Deputies concerned.
I wish to ask the Minister about the commitment given in the Programme for Government that the Government would investigate all the possibilities of using Community and international law to hasten the winding down and closure of Sellafield. Can the Minister indicate if, arising from the most recent incident, the Government has any immediate plans to take action against Sellafield under Community or international law?
That matter is under continuing review based on evidence available to the Department in terms of a case that could be prudently brought against the UK authorities. A case being brought in the High Court in London seeking to establish a causal link between Sellafield discharges and the instances of leukaemia in the Cumbrian region is being monitored closely by my Department. The outcome of that case would give us ideas how to successfully bring any such action. The situation is under continuing review. The case in the High Court in London is being monitored very closely by us.
In view of the close proximity of Sellafield to the constituency of Louth, is the Minister aware that following a previous leakage the level of radioactivity in the soil in Louth and County Down was above the national average? Will he now initiate further detailed soil testing in that area for comparison purposes following this leak?
I shall come back to the Deputy after considering that suggestion to see if it is appropriate in this case.
Does the Minister intend to raise this matter at European level? It seems extraordinary that these leaks can take place and no action is taken at EC level in respect of standards or requirement imposed on member states. Does he intend leading the charge, so to speak, in view of the danger to the health of the Irish people?
It has been the view on all sides of the House that a European agency with power should be involved in monitoring the safety of nuclear installations throughout the community. That has been a policy objective for some time. I will try to find out if that is a possibility in the appropriate fora.
What might those fora be?
Would the Minister not seek a special meeting?
The Deputy should realise that in relation to this matter — full information on which has only come to our notice today — since Friday we have been checking to see what, if any, impact it is having on the readings we get from the Radiological Protection Institute. I am giving the fullest information to the House at this time. What decisions or further proposals we intend to make will become apparent as we assess the situation which is ongoing. We await the outcome of the inquiry.
This is an ongoing problem.
I now call Deputy Harney. I shall also call Deputy Mitchell and a final question from Deputy Theresa Ahearn.
I certainly appreciate the Minister's concern on this matter but given the delay by British Nuclear Fuels to notify the British authorities of the leak, would he discuss with his UK counterpart the possibility of establishing a permanent, independent, monitoring regime at Sellafield? This is the umpteenth occasion this has occurred. Second, given that permission to set up the THORP plant was granted 16 years ago under environmental conditions that were very different from those which exist today, will the Minister ask the authorities in Britain to have an environmental impact study carried out on the proposed THORP plant with a view to improving the conditions that will operate when it is open? Since ships carrying spent fuel to the THORP plant will travel the Irish Sea very close to the Irish coastline, is the Minister satisfied that we have the appropriate emergency plans in place if an accident were to occur? Will he discuss the possibility on getting co-operation and help from the European Community in relation to these matters as this would be extremely costly for a small nation like ours?
I have called for more than an environmental impact assessment; I have called for a full public inquiry in the UK in relation to the THORP reprocessing plant. Our concerns are such that that is a legitimate request to make. We will continue to to seek that public inquiry before the THORP plant goes ahead.
Clearly there are contingency plans within the Department in the event of any disaster happening during the shipping of waste materials to and from Sellafield. It is important for the House to know that, the Department's record in terms of its vigilance has been well established down the years and we will continue to look at this matter and ensure as far as we can, that the fullest disclosures are forthcoming from everyone concerned and that everything is within safety limits. However, that in no way diminishes our concern or the level of representation we will be making. We can satisfy ourselves — and I can satisfy the House — that all proper and appropriate steps are taken to ensure that this does not happen again.
The Minister is vigilantly watching——
The Minister mentioned that his Department had contingency plans in relation to a marine disaster connected with Sellafield. Would the Minister expand on those contingency plans? If there was a major leak or accident at Sellafield, is there an emergency plan in place to deal with it? Would he allay the fears of the House especially in view of delay in notifying us in this case?
I am giving as much information as possible. If the Deputy puts down a separate question on a matter which is not central to the incident which took place on Friday, I will be glad to answer it in full.
It took the Minister five days after the incident to put pen to paper to register our protest. Does he think his wait and see attitude is acceptable?
I realise the Deputy is attempting to indicate there was some prevarication on behalf of the Department dealing with this incident. I want to assure her that there was not. I would also make the point that——
(Interruptions.)
The House has been very orderly up to now. Let us keep it so.
In relation to communication with our counterparts in the UK, it is always prudent to determine what the situation is here first so that what we put on paper makes sense, is accurate and, particularly in a case like this has a scientific basis.
I remind the Minister that as a member of the British-Irish parliamentary body he would have been present when a ministerial report on Sellafield informed the 50 Members of Parliament of Britain and Ireland that there were contingency plans to report incidents to our Government as soon as they occurred. Would he tell the House that did not happen this time within the timescale — 24 hours — given at the British-Irish parliamentary meeting?
I always value the deliberations of the British-Irish parliamentary body. I assure the Deputy that any breakdown in the procedures that were established in terms of information being forwarded to us are being taken up with the British authorities and will be pursued by us.
Arising from my concern at the operations of Sellafield, I communicated with the British Ambassador some time ago. He agreed that next Thursday the Director of THORP and the Director of Health and Safety will visit this House to hear the views of an all party delegation. In view of the seriousness of the situation would the Minister agree to give the all party group a comprehensive briefing and maybe meet the Directors of THORP so that we can express at both Government and all party level our concerns at the operations of Sellafield?
I will be happy to do that. The British Government were informed at 4 p.m. and we were informed at 5.15 p.m. on Friday. The reason for the delay between the actual discharge and the UK Government being informed is something we want to find out about and that is one of the reasons for the inquiry being undertaken by the UK authorities at present.
That disposes of questions for today.