I am pleased to introduce this Bill which is comparatively short and of a technical nature. It provides for amendments to certain sections of the Radiological Protection Acts, 1991 and 1995, specifically those relating to the regulatory licensing role of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland.
Before speaking on the details of the Bill I would like to outline by way of background the functions of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. The institute was established in April 1992 under the Radiological Protection Act, 1991, and replaced the Nuclear Energy Board. The main functions of the institute are enshrined in the provisions of the 1991 Act and include providing advice to the Government, the Minister for Public Enterprise and other Ministers on matters relating to radiological safety; monitoring developments abroad relating to nuclear installations and radiological safety; monitoring, measuring and assessing radioactivity contamination of the environment, including the seas around Ireland; controlling by way of licence the custody, use, manufacture, importation, transportation, distribution, exportation and disposal of radioactive substances, irradiating apparatus and other sources of ionising radiation; informing the public on any matters relating to radiological safety and supporting the development and implementation of national plans for nuclear and radiological emergencies.
The institute is responsible for all activities in this State involving ionising radiation which include hospitals, dental practices, veterinary surgeons, laboratory instruments, industrial operations, distribution of irradiating equipment, industrial radiography and research laboratories. There are over 1,000 licensees. Many of these licensed activities are carried on quietly and efficiently. However, they are potentially hazardous to workers, patients under medical and dental care, and members of the public if not operated to high standards of radiological protection. The institute has a key role as regulator in ensuring that acceptable standards of practice are maintained. The amendments proposed in this Bill concern the regulatory activities of the institute currently enshrined in the Radiological Protection Act, 1991, which I will refer to as the "1991 Act" in the rest of my contribution.
In essence, the Bill makes provision for the strengthening of the institute's licensing powers relating to the use of X-ray equipment by practitioners and the elaboration of powers to fix licence fees. It also creates new offences to enhance the institute's regulatory role drawing upon the institute's experience since the 1991 Act was enacted.
Section 2 provides for amendments to section 30 of the 1991 Act. Section 30 of the 1991 Act is the main legislative basis for the institute's regulatory functions and essentially provides for the institute to regulate, by licence, the custody, control and use of radioactive substances, nuclear devices or irradiating apparatus. The main provisions in section 2 of the Bill relate to the institute's power to licence persons for the use of X-ray equipment and the Minister's power to prescribe by regulation the institute's licence fees in respect of its regulatory activities.
Under section 30 of the 1991 Act, the institute is empowered to licence persons for the custody and use of X-ray equipment. However, neither the 1991 Act nor the 1993 order made under it, empowers the institute to satisfy itself as to the competence of the licensee to use such equipment. In fact, section 7(2) of the 1991 Act, which was amended by section 26 of the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1995, restricts the institute's role to the supervision and care of the X-ray equipment and to ensuring that the equipment is properly calibrated and maintained. The institute has, in its annual reports of the last two years, highlighted this narrow focus as a potential cause of concern, particularly in relation to the regulation of chiropractors.
The European Communities (Medical Ionising Radiation) Regulations, 1988, which are enforced by the Minister for Health and Children, set out the requirements relating to the competency of persons engaged in the use of X-ray equipment for medical and dental purposes. In summary, articles 5 and 6 of the 1988 regulations provide that a person cannot carry out a medical or dental treatment involving ionising radiation unless he or she is a doctor or other practitioner or a dentist deemed by the Medical Council, or the Dental Council, as the case may be, to have the required competence in terms of radiation protection and radiation techniques. However, chiropractors, unlike doctors or dentists, are not recognised by the Medical Council. At present, an anomalous legislative situation exists whereby the institute can license a chiropractor for the custody and use of X-ray equipment despite the fact that under the separate 1988 regulations mentioned above, the chiropractor is not entitled to use the equipment as he or she is not recognised by the Medical Council.
Section 2(b) of the Bill will rectify this anomaly. It will amend the 1991 Act to provide that the institute cannot grant a licence for the use of X-ray apparatus unless the institute is satisfied that the person satisfies the requirements of articles 5 or 6 of the 1988 regulations. The amendment will also empower the institute to revoke an existing licence where the licensee does not meet the same requirements. It will be the responsibility of the Minister for Health and Children to ensure that the users of such substances, devices or apparatus for these purposes meet the requirements of the 1988 regulations.
The other main amendment in section 2 of the Bill relates to an amendment to section 30(7) of the 1991 Act. The existing section 30(7) of the 1991 Act empowers the Minister for Public Enterprise to prescribe by regulation a fee which the institute may charge in respect of the issue by the institute of a licence.
The proposed amendment to section 2(d) of the Bill will elaborate on the existing fee fixing powers relating to licences issued by the institute. It is designed to confer maximum flexibility on the Minister so that the institute's licensing administration costs will be recovered in a fair and equitable manner. For example the institute will be empowered to retain fees or a proportion of fees paid to it in respect of the licensing process in circumstances where the licence applicant does not ultimately qualify for a licence. All these fee fixing changes will be important to the new regulatory powers of the institute under a EURATOM directive to which I will refer later.
Section 2(e) of the Bill provides that the institute will not perform the licensing function where the prescribed fee has not been paid. It also provides for the institute to recover any money owing to it from the person by whom the money is payable in the event that a proportion of a licence fee is payable following the grant of a licence.
Section 2(a) and 2(c) of the Bill is a textual amendment to section 30(4) and (5), respectively, of the 1991 Act which has the effect of reinforcing certain licensing powers of the institute. Section 3 of the Bill amends section 40(1) of the 1991 Act by the addition of a provision which will make it an offence for a person to knowingly or recklessly make a false statement when applying for a licence under section 30 of that Act. It also makes it an offence for a person not to comply with a condition of a licence granted pursuant to section 30.
Section 4 of the Bill amends section 41 of the 1991 Act, as amended by section 65 of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act, 1998. The amendments are merely technical amendments to clarify the summary prosecution powers of those relevant Ministers, the institute and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland identified in section 41 of the 1991 Act, as amended, in respect of offences created under section 3 of the Bill.
I would now like to speak about an important EU directive in the area of radiation protection and then to refer to the Government's policy in regard to nuclear safety and radiological protection. First, Council Directive 96/29 of Euratom, which was adopted on 13 May 1996, lays down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. This directive replaces a previous basic safety standards directive and applies to all practices involving ionising radiation and to activities involving naturally occurring radiation sources. In so far as Ireland is concerned the directive would apply, for example, to hospitals, dental practices, veterinary practices and universities where radiation is used. It will also apply to any industrial activities where radioactive sources would be involved.
The directive, unlike the previous directive, will cover work activities involving exposure to natural radiation, for example, radon in the case of show caves, and cosmic radiation in the case of air crew. The directive lays down a number of obligations for which member states must legislate. These include identification of work activities; introduction of radiation exposure levels; introduction of radiation protection principles for intervention in cases of radiological emergencies or lasting exposures and the need to have emergency planning in place to cover radiological emergencies and accidents. I should point out that a number of the requirements of the directive are already provided for in existing national legislation.
This is an important directive which will profoundly influence radiological protection in member states for a considerable time. It represents a significant step forward in radiation protection. As I mentioned, member states are required to transpose the directive into national legislation by not later than 13 May 2000. I intend to meet this deadline. To this end, my Department is currently finalising a consultation paper which will set out how Ireland intends to implement the directive. The objective of the consultation paper will be to draw upon a wide spectrum of opinion and expertise within the country before finalising the legislative proposals. I intend to have the consultation paper available in early January. It is the intention that the directive will be implemented into Irish law by way of an order made under section 30 of the 1991 Act.
I would like to turn now to the Government's policy in regard to nuclear safety and radiological protection and its continuing campaign against the UK nuclear industry. Public and political opinion in Ireland is opposed to the use of nuclear power for energy purposes. The Government shares the concerns of the Irish people about the implications for Ireland of nuclear facilities, particularly those in the UK and, notably, Sellafield. The Irish Government's policy, therefore, places heavy emphasis on nuclear safety and radiological protection and is firmly committed to its campaign against the continuation and any expansion of the UK nuclear industry. Sellafield, because of its proximity to Ireland and its complex nuclear operations, has long been a source of grave concern to successive Irish Governments and the Irish public. The main factors driving the Irish Government's opposition to the Sellafield operations is the risk, however remote, of a catastrophic accident, the aging Magnox reactors, the continued reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, the storage of high level radioactive waste on site and the impact of radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea.
I will briefly outline some of the more recent actions which the Government has taken in pursuit of its campaign against Sellafield. Since assuming the nuclear safety brief, I have attempted to influence UK Ministers on their Government's nuclear policies and have left them in no doubt about the strong feeling on this side of the Irish Sea. In November 1997 I had my first formal meeting with the UK Minister for the Environment, Mr. Michael Meacher, MP, and outlined to him the Government's continuing concerns about the Sellafield operations. At the meeting with Mr. Meacher I called for the decommissioning of the aging Magnox reactors, an end to radioactive discharges and the speeding up of the vitrification process in respect of the high level liquid waste stored at Sellafield. These concerns were also raised at a meeting in June this year between officials of my Department and the relevant UK Departments.
As a follow up to the November 1997 meeting, I have been in correspondence with Mr. John Battle, MP, the UK Minister of State for Science, Energy and Industry, regarding my concerns about the high level waste storage arrangements at Sellafield. In my correspondence with Mr. Battle I emphasised the need to give priority to the acceleration of the waste vitrification process to facilitate a much earlier target date than 2015 for clearance of the backlog of waste. I also asked Mr. Battle to exhort British Nuclear Fuels to release to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland detailed technical information, including probability risk assessments, relating to the waste storage tanks. This information had been sought by the institute from BNFL to enable the institute to make its own judgment of the risks involved. Discussions are continuing between the institute and BNFL on this issue.
In tandem with my own personal contact, both formal and informal, with the UK Ministers, my Department has made two submissions to the UK Environment Agency, one concerning the proposed mixed oxide — MOX — fuel fabrication plant for Sellafield and the other concerning a proposed variation by the agency of the Sellafield discharge authorisation certificate. In essence, the submission on MOX detailed the Irish Government's objections to the proposed plant and pointed out that the claimed economic benefits of MOX do not in any way outweigh the detriment to society in terms of increased risk to public health, the environment and security.
As regards radioactive discharges, the submission restated Ireland's concerns about such discharges into the Irish Sea, particularly discharges of technetium-99 which have grown significantly since 1994, and its desire to see a cessation of all such discharges.
I mention at this point an important and positive development as regards to radioactive discharges into the marine environment. I am referring to the commitments made at the meeting of the OSPAR Ministers in Portugal in July last which I regard as a significant step forward in the Government's campaign against Sellafield. At that meeting a strategy on radioactive discharges was adopted which committed all OSPAR Ministers, including the UK Ministers, to the virtual elimination of such discharges into the sea by the year 2020.
I gave a great deal of attention to the preparation of Ireland's strategy in the OSPAR meeting and I believe the eventual outcome was a vindication of the efforts which I and my officials made in this process. Additionally, UK Ministers, at the same meeting, promised to take account of concerns raised by Ireland and other countries about technetium-99 discharges into the Irish Sea. I, therefore, intend to ensure that UK Ministers honour those commitments speedily and in a way which addresses legitimate concerns about the impact of such discharges on sea-based livelihoods and the enjoyment of the amenities of the Irish Sea.
In the light of the OSPAR commitments, I very much regret the recently announced draft decision prepared by the UK Environment Agency concerning a variation in the Sellafield discharge authorisation. The agency's proposed decision, while it involves a reduction in the permitted, levels of technetium-99 discharges, is totally unacceptable to the Government as the proposed technetium reductions are completely inadequate. I regard the proposed decision as effectively a breach of the undertaking entered into by UK Ministers at the OSPAR ministerial meeting. However, UK Ministers have the final decision making powers relating to this matter and the Environment Agency has merely announced draft decisions. The agency has referred the proposed decision to UK Ministers for their consideration as to "whether they wish to direct the agency to make a different decision or to issue further policy guidance to the agency". In other words, the buck stops with Ministers. As far as I am concerned, UK Ministers must be seen to observe their OSPAR commitments now. Their handling of the technetium-99 discharges issue will be a measure of how seriously they take those commitments.
On the same day as it announced its proposed decision on radioactive discharges, the UK Environment Agency also announced its proposed decision to give the go ahead to the MOX plant. Again, this proposed decision has been referred by the agency to UK Ministers for final decision. On the day the Environment Agency announced these proposed decisions, I wrote to the relevant UK Ministers expressing the Government's strong objections to them. I will do everything possible to ensure the proposed decision on MOX is rescinded and the one on radioactive discharges is modified to reflect the commitment given at the OSPAR ministerial meeting. As the Taoiseach stated in his address to the recent Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis; "Ireland objects strongly to any new MOX plant or to any continuation of Sellafield pollution".
A number of important international conventions have been adopted over the past two years which will enhance nuclear safety worldwide. The Convention on Nuclear Safety, to which Ireland was among the first signatories, came into force in October 1996. Its aim is to ensure all land based civil nuclear installations are safe, well regulated and promote a high level of nuclear safety worldwide. The convention requires each contracting party to take adequate national measures to ensure nuclear safety and to report to other contracting parties on the measures taken.
The convention will present Ireland with a unique opportunity to participate in a nuclear safety peer review process every three years. The first such review will take place under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency next April. The review will assess how participating countries are complying with the obligations of the convention. Furthermore, it will provide Ireland with an opportunity to query the country reports of the UK and others regarding their compliance with the convention. The country reports in respect of a number of contracting parties have already been circulated by the IAEA, and all such reports will be discussed at the review meeting next April. Ireland sees this convention as a major breakthrough in fostering a global nuclear safety culture and providing a forum for extensive information exchange on nuclear safety matters.
In September 1997 Ireland was among the first signatories of a new Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. This convention places new and extensive obligations on contracting parties. These include provisions relating to general safety requirements, siting, design, construction and operation of facilities and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste. The convention also establishes a peer review process similar to that applicable to the Convention on Nuclear Safety.
A significant feature of the joint convention in which Ireland was active in negotiating relates to the inclusion within its scope of reprocessing facilities such as those at Sellafield. Contracting parties can make a voluntary declaration that reprocessing is an intrinsic part of spent fuel management. I welcome the UK's commitment to the effect that it would voluntarily extend the convention's scope to reprocessing activities. Thus, from an Irish perspective, it will be possible to address public concerns about UK reprocessing facilities, especially the THORP plant at Sellafield, during the peer review meetings.
The new joint convention also obliges neighbouring countries to consult countries in close proximity on the siting of proposed facilities. These consultation obligations are relevant to Ireland's long standing objections to the siting of any new radioactive waste disposal facilities in Britain. On entry into force, the convention will give firm backing to consultations by the UK with Ireland on such facilities.
Ireland played an active role in the negotiation and conclusion of the new international conventions negotiated under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They will enhance nuclear safety worldwide and represent the type of significant international commitment which Ireland and other non-nuclear states have been trying to establish for many years to ensure that states which espouse the use of nuclear energy have an obligation to ensure the highest standards of safety and radiological protection are employed.
Radon, a naturally occurring odourless radioactive gas found in soil and rocks, can access buildings and domestic dwellings. I am aware of various research which has concluded that radon gas may be a contributory factor in increasing the risk of lung cancer. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, in 1992, initiated a national survey to measure radon concentrations in domestic dwellings. The institute's survey which has been completed in respect of 24 counties to date is due for completion early next year. Of the houses measured to date some 1,500 have been identified as having radon measurements in excess of the national reference level of 200 bequerels per cubic metre. This is a level above which the institute would recommend that radon remediation works be undertaken by the householder. When the survey is completed the institute intends producing a map showing the areas most affected by radon. The Government is making every effort to address the problem of high radon concentrations in dwellings.
The Department of the Environment and Local Government published revised technical guidance documents relating to building regulations which incorporate explicit requirements for radon preventative measures in the construction of new dwellings from 1 July 1998. More elaborate radon protection measures are specified for new houses in the high radon areas identified in the institute's survey. At the request of the Minister for Education and Science, the institute has recently initiated a comprehensive nationwide radon measurement survey of schools to ensure problems with radon are identified.
The EU Basic Safety Standards Directive, which I referred to earlier, includes specific provisions relating to exposure to natural radiation sources and, in this context, the exposure of workers and members of the public to radon in the workplace is specifically addressed.
The Government is firmly committed to its policy of nuclear safety and radiological protection and to its campaign against Sellafield. Earlier this year, it established the Ministerial Committee on Nuclear Safety. The committee, which I chair, comprises the Ministers of State at the Departments of Marine and Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, Health and Children and Environment and Local Government and officials from the Office of the Attorney General, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and the above mentioned Departments. The committee's terms of reference are broad and encompass nuclear and radiological safety issues and the campaign against Sellafield. Its objective is to co-ordinate nuclear safety policy, to complement the work of the various Departments and State agencies in developing and implementing radiological protection policy and to give added impetus to the Government's efforts in the area of nuclear safety and radiation protection. The committee has met on four occasions since its establishment.
When speaking about the Sellafield threat, I mentioned the ever-present risk of an accident at the plant. The same risk is there for other plants in the UK and elsewhere. The Government has a plan of action in place in the event of a nuclear accident. The national emergency plan for nuclear accidents is designed to provide a rapid and effective response to accidents which involve the release, or potential release, of radioactive substances into the environment which could give rise to radiation exposure. The national emergency plan outlines the measures to assess and mitigate the effects of nuclear accidents which occur in the UK or elsewhere which might pose a radiological hazard to Ireland. As Minister with responsibility for nuclear safety matters, I am responsible for the emergency plan and for ensuring the co-ordination of the respective responsibilities and functions of relevant Departments, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and local authorities.
Following a simulated nuclear emergency exercise in November 1996, in which Ireland participated, a fundamental review of the plan was undertaken by my Department and the institute in consultation with the other relevant Departments. Arising from the review, a number of procedural and practical improvements to the plan were identified and these have now been approved by Government. These include the establishment of a committee of Ministers from the appropriate Departments which would give policy direction on recommended countermeasures as necessary; the reinforcement of the co-ordinating role of the existing emergency response co-ordination committee, which comprises representatives from key Departments and Government agencies; the establishment of a consultative committee comprising senior officials of relevant Departments and Government agencies to exchange views on the plan, including its organisations and testing and to make decisions on necessary actions relevant to their respective areas and an upgrading of the accommodation, communications equipment and public information services within the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. The new arrangements also provide for the exploration of the possibilities of North-South co-operation in the context of an accident or emergency affecting or potentially affecting the island as a whole. These arrangements take immediate effect but I hope to publish an updated plan in 1999.
Before concluding, I wish to refer to the County Louth residents legal action against British Nuclear Fuels. As the House will be aware, the Government approved an offer of financial assistance of £400,000 to the residents towards the cost of research work to be undertaken by them. This offer was made despite the fact that the State is a co-defendant in the residents' action. A number of payments have been made to the residents on foot of this offer. The Government also approved, in December 1997, a package of assistance relating to defined areas of work by the residents' legal team in assessing research work. This package was outlined by me to the residents that same month. However, the residents have yet to confirm that they are in a position to accept this offer. I emphasise that, despite the fact that the State remains a co-defendant in this case, the Government has, at all times, endeavoured to be as helpful and as co-operative as possible to the residents. The commitment of not insignificant resources by the Government is indicative of its willingness in this regard.
I assure the House that the Government will keep under review the question of taking legal action against BNFL in respect of the risk to Ireland from Sellafield. However, litigation against Sellafield raises many complex technical and legal issues. The Government will continue to draw upon the best scientific and legal advice before deciding on litigation of such a challenging nature.
I have endeavoured to paint a picture of the Government's efforts to promote nuclear safety and radiological protection and the actions being taken by the Government to protect the citizens of Ireland from the environmental hazards of nuclear power activities in the UK and elsewhere. Over the past ten years or so, the tide of public opinion in Europe has moved against nuclear power. Ireland, through successive Governments, has played a large role in this process and, as far as the Government is concerned, will continue to play a leading role in highlighting the risks associated with the nuclear energy industry and ancillary activities.
I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the contributions of Senators.
