Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Nuclear Plants.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 2 June 2004

Wednesday, 2 June 2004

Ceisteanna (61, 62)

Paul Nicholas Gogarty

Ceist:

51 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the action he intends to take on foot of an article in the New Scientist magazine quoting a UK House of Commons defence committee report which states that a large plane crashing into a UK nuclear reactor could release as much radioactivity as the Chernobyl accident in 1986, while a crash into waste tanks at Sellafield in Cumbria would cause, at worst, several million fatalities. [16605/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I am aware of recent media reports regarding an, as yet, unpublished report by the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology which I understand includes references to potential impacts of aircraft on UK nuclear reactors. This report when published will be considered by my officials with the assistance of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII.

The latest reports follow a series of media reports in late March on security matters at Sellafield, including references to alleged breaches of the no fly zone around Sellafield by military aircraft, the relative vulnerabilities to aircraft attack of the Sellafield nuclear plant and the provision of additional physical security measures at Sellafield. On foot of these latter reports, I have written to The Rt. Hon. Ms Patricia Hewitt, MP, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, seeking a report on the various issues raised and I am awaiting a reply.

The safety of Sellafield, and the protective measures in place to secure this, are a particular ongoing concern in Ireland, and are the subject of regular discussions at both ministerial and official level between the UK and Ireland. They have also been addressed in the context of Ireland's case concerning the Sellafield MOX plant under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. However, the response by the UK, that access to security sensitive information is restricted to those who have an operational need for such information, severely restricts the potential for providing the necessary reassurances to the Irish public in relation to our legitimate concerns regarding the significant risks posed by an accident or malicious attack at Sellafield.

On this basis, there is a clear need for an agreed, structured and meaningful exchange of sensitive security information which will meet the confidence building and assurance needs of Ireland in relation to safety and security at Sellafield without compromising the security needs and concerns of the UK in relation to such information. As long as Sellafield poses a threat to the health and environment of Irish people, I will continue to ensure that these concerns are reflected in our ongoing contacts at ministerial and official level on nuclear issues.

Question No. 52 answered with QuestionNo. 31.

Joe Sherlock

Ceist:

53 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding this country’s international legal case in connection with the Sellafield nuclear plant; if he has now received the further report of the UNCLOS tribunal which was due to be received by 31 May 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16526/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

The arbitration proceedings brought by Ireland against the United Kingdom under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, in relation to the Sellafield MOX plant are currently adjourned pending resolution of jurisdictional issues in the dispute, which were raised by the European Commission. However, Ireland was granted a provisional measures order by the tribunal on 24 June 2003. This order called upon the United Kingdom and Ireland to make arrangements to review and improve co-operation and consultation between the two countries. Discussions in this regard between officials from Ireland and the United Kingdom, are currently ongoing.

The provisional measures award and orders of the UNCLOS tribunal of 24 June 2003 and 14 November 2003 also made provision for reports to be submitted by both parties to the tribunal on specified dates, including 31 May 2004, in relation to the provisional measures awarded. I assume this is the report referred to in the question and I can confirm that Ireland has submitted its report in accordance with the tribunal's orders. The ongoing discussions and reports, remain confidential to the parties and to the tribunal, pending outcomes. However, it is my intention to report on any initiatives arising from this process in due course.

The jurisdictional issues raised by the European Commission are currently the subject of litigation between Ireland and the Commission before the European Court of Justice.

Barr
Roinn