Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Ceist:8 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress he is making to reduce radioactive discharges from Sellafield to zero. [12292/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThursday, 29 April 2004
Ceisteanna (5)
Freagraí ó Béal (7 píosaí cainte)
The UK Government and other contracting parties to the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic signed up to the OSPAR strategy with regard to radioactive substances, which was adopted in 1998 at the ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission.
The objective of the strategy is that by the year 2020, discharges of radioactive substances to the marine environment are reduced by way of progressive and substantial reductions to levels where the additional concentrations in the marine environment above historic levels arising from such discharges are close to zero. The Government is determined to ensure that the OSPAR strategy is fully implemented within the 2020 timeframe.
The OSPAR Commission, at its ministerial meeting which I attended in Bremen in June last year, reviewed the progress towards implementation of the strategy. At that meeting the commission discussed the national plans submitted by the contracting parties to the convention for implementing the strategy and concluded that, provided the plans are implemented as forecast, the overall level of discharges will be reduced by 2020.
The commission also adopted the period 1995-2001 as the reference period for establishing the base lines in respect of discharges, concentrations and doses against which progress in implementing the strategy can be measured. The commission agreed, at the 2003 meeting, that given the intermediate nature of the national plans and the need for their refinement and revision over time, it will not be possible at that stage to make a final assessment as to whether the combined effects of the national plans would achieve the objective of the strategy to the extent required by the 2020 timeframe. The meeting agreed, therefore, on the need to determine by 2006 a methodology for assessing progress of the plans towards implementation of the strategy and for updating national plans.
The announcement on 21 April 2004 by the UK Environment Agency and BNFL of the success of the TPP chemical plant trials at Sellafield to reduce discharges of technetium 99, Tc 99, into the sea is a welcome development. Ireland, with a number of the Nordic countries, particularly Norway, had been expressing its serious concerns in the OSPAR forum and directly with the UK Government about Tc 99 discharges. In the OSPAR ministerial statement following the 2003 OSPAR ministerial meeting, the OSPAR Ministers had again noted these concerns and had welcomed the moratorium on Tc 99 discharges pending the outcome of the TPP trials. In welcoming this technical development to reduce discharges, I would expect the new situation to be reflected appropriately in the UK statutory annual discharge authorisation for Tc 99 from Sellafield.
The Government, with like-minded states, in particular Norway, is maintaining the maximum pressure within the OSPAR forum to ensure the objective of the OSPAR strategy is fully delivered and on time. Progress towards implementation of the strategy is also continually raised by Ireland at meetings with the UK, both at ministerial and official level.
The comparison between the statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK and what the Minister stated is interesting. Obviously there are similarities in terms of the OSPAR strategy on radioactive substances, as mentioned by the Minister, but does he accept that when the UK authorities say they are committed to a reduction of discharges to levels in 2020 that will add negligible amounts to historic concentrations of radioactivity in the marine environment and that those historic concentrations include deliberate discharges during the 1950s of large amounts of plutonium? It is not satisfactory, therefore, to talk about levels being akin to those concentrations.
Has the Minister taken his foot off the pedal in regard to zero discharges and whether the Government is satisfied that the UK position on what it calls negligible amounts is adequate and if that can be compared to a negligible impact on the marine environment and negligible deaths if it comes to radioactivity becoming airborne or coming through the food chain? Does he accept that there is no safe level of radioactivity? Notwithstanding the natural background radiation, does he accept we should not add one iota to the radioactive background, and are zero discharges the objective?
The Government has been pursuing a policy to close down Sellafield for a considerable length of time. The Deputy will be aware of the case we took under UNCLOS to The Hague last year in respect of Sellafield, and a question was raised by the European Commission about the competence, whether of UNCLOS or the European Court of Justice. That is now being considered by the European Court of Justice. At the same time, as a result of our involvement in The Hague, we are working closely with the UK authorities in preparing reports but I am told it could be next year or shortly after that before a decision is taken in regard to the competence. We believe the competence is of our own and not of the EU, but that matter is to be decided by the courts.
I am anxious to ensure there are no discharges into any sea, particularly the Irish Sea, but as a result of meetings we have held at OSPAR and other venues the Deputy can take it that neither the Minister nor myself will take our foot off the pedal. We have made progress. Last year we met the Minister for Energy, Patricia Hewitt, in London and we are in constant contact with Elliot Morley, and at all meetings I take the opportunity to raise the issue. I have got a good deal of support from the Nordic countries also. It is dangerous to suggest a zero rate but we want a realistic reduction in discharges. I will not seek a back-loaded reduction to 2020 but one that is progressive and substantial from now on.
Will the Minister of State agree that neither he nor I, nor anybody in this country, should believe a word uttered by British Nuclear Fuels because it has told us nothing but lies for generations?
The word "lies" is not appropriate, Deputy.
Will he elaborate on the position of the RPII? Will it have a role in the monitoring of the Tc 99 emissions, particularly the TPP process? Will its representatives be invited to the Sellafield site to scrutinise that process and report back to the Minister and the Department and, through them, the Irish people on the unfolding of that process?
We are in constant contact at official and ministerial level. Shortly after my appointment I spoke with representatives of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland who made a number of visits at that time. I would like much more information but we are within the realms of what we are allowed to do. The Deputy will be aware that the European Commission was very critical of the storage arrangements and the audits that were available to them. I assure him we will be in constant contact with them to try to progress the matter.