Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now consider the topic of existing and proposed nuclear power plants in the United and Ireland and their implications for Ireland. I welcome from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland Dr. Ann McGarry, chief executive officer; Dr. Kevin Kelleher and Dr. Ciara McMahon. Go raibh maith agaibh as bheith i láthair. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also advise that the opening statement and any other document submitted to the committee may be published on its website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Obviously the location of power plants on the west coast of Britain is of great interest to us and on occasion has worried Irish people. Therefore, we are entitled, in the wider context of the debate on British nuclear policy, to express our concerns and fears, even though we are not in the same jurisdiction. As we are near neighbours, there are many issues of concern to us. Nuclear power is not our chosen route of energy generation. Therefore, the majority of Irish people probably agree with our policy on nuclear energy. The effects of accidents at nuclear power plants are strong in people's minds, particularly those who live on the east coast.

A number of years ago, a documentary on RTE - it was a kind of docudrama, for want of a better description - dealt with the possible fall-out and implications for Ireland of an accident at Sellafield. Perhaps Dr. McGarry might take that into consideration in her contribution and in our exchanges. If such an accident took place, what could we do here? I am reminded of the infamous political interview about iodine tablets a number of years ago. I presume our thinking about how we would react has moved on since then. How are we equipped to deal with the fall-out from a nuclear accident? Dr. McGarry might bear those questions in mind in her contributions. We would like to hear her views.

Dr. Ann McGarry:

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for inviting us here today to address them on the implications for Ireland of existing and proposed nuclear plants in the UK. We welcome the opportunity to inform the committee of the results of our assessments and to respond to its questions on particular issues of concern. As members of the committee have already received a detailed paper from us, I propose to take them through a short presentation that is based on a number of Powerpoint slides. I will then be in a position to respond to questions.

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland's mission is to ensure people in Ireland are protected from the harmful effects of radiation. We do this in a number of ways. Radiation sources and X-ray equipment have many beneficial uses for society in areas like medicine, industry, education and research. The institute regulates this use to ensure those directly using radiation sources, and the wider public, have an appropriate level of protection. In addition to our laboratory facilities, we operate a network of monitoring stations around the country where we can measure radiation levels in a range of sample types. We use the results of the monitoring and the measurements to assess the consequences of radiation levels for people living in Ireland. The institute plays an important role in Ireland's national plan for responding to nuclear accidents abroad. We also provide a range of services to licensees and businesses. For example, we certify the levels of radioactivity in Irish food products that are being exported outside the EU.

The committee has invited us to present our assessment of the implications for Ireland of the existing and proposed nuclear plants in the UK. The slide I am showing the committee lists the existing plants there. Members will see that there are seven nuclear power plants on the west coast of the UK, facing Ireland. All of these plants are due to be shut down by 2023. I also draw the attention of the committee to the Sellafield site, which was mentioned by the Chairman. The facility at Sellafield is not a nuclear power plant - it is a nuclear fuel production and reprocessing plant. The next slide shows where the proposed new power plants will be located. As the UK needs to replace the energy produced by the older plants that are due to be shut down, it has identified eight sites as being suitable for the construction of new nuclear plants by 2025. As the slide indicates, seven of the proposed sites already have nuclear power plants located on them. Some of those power plants are still operating and some of them have already shut down. The eighth proposed site is adjacent to the Sellafield site at Moorside.

When we think of how Ireland might be affected by the radiation emitted from these plants, either during their day-to-day operations or as a result of an accident, we must consider the two primary ways in which radioactivity may reach Ireland - through the air or through the sea. Radioactivity that enters into the air can expose us directly, or we can inhale the air and so be exposed. If radioactivity gets into the food chain, we can be exposed to it by eating contaminated food. Similarly, if radioactivity discharged into the sea gets into the food chain, people living in Ireland can be exposed to it. The term "radiation pathways" is used to describe the way in which radiation from nuclear plants in the UK has an impact on Ireland.

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland assesses the impact of routine discharges from existing nuclear plants in the UK by measuring radioactivity in the environment. Those radioactivity measurements are considered alongside habit data, which can include data on the patterns of eating fish or shellfish from the Irish Sea or walking along beaches that might be contaminated. In that way, we can work out how much exposure people in Ireland have to the radiation emitted from those plants. Subsequently, we can estimate what the implications of the radiation dose they have received might be for their health. We provide information to the public. We produce monitoring reports every year to give people details of the impact of radioactive discharges from nuclear plants in the UK.

The impact of the routine discharges from Sellafield and nuclear plants in the UK makes up a very small part of the Irish population's overall exposure to radiation. The pie chart on the slide I am showing the committee gives a breakdown of the sources of the exposure to radiation of a notional average person living in Ireland. As members can see, radon in our homes makes by far the biggest contribution to our radiation exposure. The red segment of the pie chart shows that radiation from artificial sources, which includes the radiation dose from Sellafield and other nuclear facilities, the radiation that is in the environment as a result of weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s and the radiation resulting from past accidents such as the Chernobyl incident, accounts for less than 1% of exposure. Therefore, the actual day-to-day impact of routine discharges from Sellafield and nuclear plants is negligible. Sellafield makes by far the largest contribution to the small impact that radiation from nuclear plants is having on the overall level.

The next slide gives details of our assessment of the potential implications for Ireland of the proposed nuclear power plants in the UK. As I have mentioned, eight sites have been deemed to be suitable for the building of new nuclear power plants in that country. We have studied the likely levels of day-to-day discharges into the air and into the sea. We have also examined the implications for Ireland and the people of Ireland of the accidents that could potentially happen at any of those locations. We have assessed five scenarios involving accidents that might release radioactivity into the air and three scenarios involving accidents that might release radioactivity into the Irish Sea.

As the plants have not yet been built, we do not have accurate information about what the actual discharges will be. Based on the information that is available about the types of reactors that may be built at each of the sites, we have developed a generic reactor model to use to estimate releases through day-to-day discharges or as a result of an accident. After we had agreed on an estimate of the amount of radiation that might be released by either route, we studied how weather patterns would affect the transport of radioactivity to Ireland by air or by sea currents. We modelled how that radioactivity would get into the food chain after it had reached Ireland. We estimated what dose of radioactivity might be given to people living in Ireland in such circumstances.

I am afraid the font used on the slide dealing with the accident scenarios we examined is quite small. We assessed five scenarios in which radioactivity is released into the air. I will not go through this slide in detail. Each scenario was based on a different frequency, ranging from one in 50,000 per annum to one in 33 million per annum. While such scenarios are quite rare, they would be quite impactful nonetheless, which is why we looked at them in detail. We divided the impacts into two categories - the health impacts and the other impacts. It is clear from the slide that in four of the five scenarios, the releases would result in no observable health effects in Ireland, even in the case of a severe accident. In the case of the fourth scenario listed on the slide, it is predicted that the release of radioactivity could pose a long-term risk of an increase in cancer rates in Ireland if our national emergency plan for nuclear accidents, which is designed to reduce the impact of an incident of this kind, does not work effectively and certain controls are not put in place.

As we saw in the cases of the incidents at Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima, an event of this nature can have a socioeconomic impact in addition to its direct health impact.

For many of the scenarios there would be socioeconomic impacts. In some cases, people would be advised to stay indoors for a period, and that period would be determined by the amount of radioactivity released. It could be from hours to possibly a day or two.

For most of the accident scenarios we considered, some food controls would be necessary. The amount of radioactivity reaching Ireland would not be enough to impact people's health directly, but if the food contaminated was not taken off the shelves and people ate it, then it may have some health impact. Our emergency plan is designed to ensure food controls would be implemented, and that is what we would expect. Changes could be necessary for farming as well. We saw that arise after the Chernobyl accident when there were restrictions, particularly on sheep and milk, for a time directly after the accident. For the accident scenarios we have considered, there could be restrictions as well.

I have referred to the national emergency plan for nuclear accidents. The plan sets out the way in which Ireland would respond in the event of an accident at a plant in the United Kingdom or further afield. The lead agency for the plan is our parent Department, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. The role of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland in the plan is, in the first instance, to alert that there has been a nuclear accident. We have bilateral arrangements with our counterparts in the UK and we also participate in the international alerting mechanisms through the European Union and the United Nations body, the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna.

We also have a role in assessing the consequences of an accident. Obviously, immediately after an accident we would not have any actual measurements of radioactivity, but based on what we know about the plant where the accident has taken place, what we know about the kind of radioactivity that might be released and the amounts, we can model what the impacts on Ireland might be and, as a result, we can advise on what counter-measures might be appropriate or what measures should be taken in such cases to limit the impact on people living in Ireland.

As of now, nuclear power plants are operating at seven sites on the west coast of the UK. There are eight sites proposed for the development of new and replacement power plants. Generally speaking, the wind direction is away from Ireland, and that is important. We already know there is no measurable radiological impact on Ireland from the existing plants for day to day operations. Based on the assessments we have done, we estimate the same would hold true for the proposed plants, that is to say, there would be no measurable radiological impact on Ireland from day-to-day operations. At the moment the reprocessing plant at Sellafield is the main source of artificial radioactivity that reaches Ireland. We can detect radioactivity from Sellafield but it does not pose a significant risk to health.

Let us consider the situation of a severe accident. I mentioned that we looked at several different scenarios which encompass the kind of accidents that occurred at Sellafield and Fukushima. We believe food and agricultural protective actions would generally be required. The extent of the protective actions and the period during which they would have to be in place would depend on the severity of the accident. For the most severe accidents we considered, staying indoors would be recommended for a period and obviously that has a certain impact. Overall, we believe socioeconomic impacts could be anticipated for a severe accident at one of the nuclear plants proposed to be built in the UK.

Primarily I have discussed discharges to air but let us suppose an accident resulted not in a release to air but a release from the new plants directly into the Irish Sea. Generally speaking, we believe protective actions would not be required. This is because the Irish Sea is so large that the amount of radioactivity released, even though it might be large, would be diluted to such an extent that although we would need to monitor the situation we do not believe that protective actions would be required.

Based on our assessments we believe routine discharges from either existing or proposed nuclear plants pose no radiological risk to people living in Ireland. For the accident scenarios that we have reviewed, in most cases, there would be no observable health effects. There would be social and economic consequences. The overall impact would depend on the severity of the accident and also on the effectiveness of our nuclear plan to respond to the accident.

The RPII will continue to monitor radioactivity levels in the environment to make these assessments. At the beginning I remarked that the plants are not built yet and it is not known what type of plant will be built at each of the proposed sites. Therefore, we are monitoring the situation on an ongoing basis. As the plants begin to be built and as more information is available about what is actually happening, we will be able to refine our assessments to give a more accurate prediction of what exactly will be the case. I confirm that our assessments are conservative to date. In addition to monitoring and assessing, we will continue to maintain a state of readiness to play our part in responding to an accident were it to occur. I thank the Chairman. We would be happy to take any questions.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. McGarry for her presentation and I thank the panel for attending. Dr. McGarry stated that there are no health risks and if that were to stack up it would be welcome. The concern I have is that there is a health risk and that there is also a risk to the food industry on this island.

Globally there seems to be a move away from nuclear power but, according to the map produced by the RPII, the Brits clearly have big plans in terms of nuclear power. There are five proposed nuclear plants on the western side of Wales and England according to the map. This means five of the proposed eight plants would be on the west coast.

A report on Sellafield was done by the UK National Audit Office. It stated in respect of Sellafield that some of the older tanks on the site have deteriorated so much that their contents pose a significant risk to the people and the environment. That was a reference to England and Scotland, not to our island to the west. The report raised several other concerns in respect of Sellafield.

The Government decided along the British Government to commission a report six years ago. It was decided that the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly would carry out the exercise. We paid somewhere in excess of €4 million for the report but we have not seen it. The Dáil has not been allowed to see it. I am unsure whether the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government or the RPII have seen it. I hope the institute has seen it but, if not, the Government should be asking why not and why it is not being made available to the Members of Parliament in this State. All we have seen is a sanitised version, what was called an edited version, which was published. I have concerns about this and about having an edited or censored version of anything because "edited" can mean anything. We have not seen it. The people who live in this State have paid for it. The commissioning of the report was decided by a parliamentary body representing the people of this island and made up of all the parties in the Dáil, not only the Government. It decided to have the report on Sellafield carried out but that report has not seen the light of day and there has not been one word or peep about it.

I am concerned at the delegates' statement that all they can do is produce a generic model of the reactors being built, including the five on the western seaboard of Wales and England. We do not know the scale of these facilities. Do we even know the type of reactor that will be used or anything else about them? For us to say we are satisfied that everything is in order is decidedly risky from a public health perspective.

I also have serious concerns in regard to the food industry. We all recall the images of the donkey and cart that were used to promote Ireland as a tourist destination in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Those images portrayed a land of make-believe. We are trying to do the same thing now in respect of the food industry - convincing people who purchase from us on foreign markets that we are a lovely clean island. The fact we are so close to Sellafield and even closer to some of the proposed new plants, particularly the Wylfa plant that will be located near Holyhead, poses a significant risk. The risk is both substantive and also more intangible in that it presents a risk to our reputation and image. We are good at creating images and reputations, but if some of the countries to which we are exporting large quantities of food were to examine these developments, they might not have such rosy picture of the situation.

Dr. Ann McGarry:

I thank the Deputy for his questions. He correctly pointed out that there are two different types of risks to consider here, one being the actual health risks to individuals living in Ireland and the second being the risk to the food industry. In terms of the situation for people in this country arising from the ongoing day-to-day operations of either the existing nuclear plants or those which are planned for construction, according to our assessments, the amounts of radioactivity released into the environment are not sufficiently high to pose a health risk. I am referring here to routine operations. The situation in the case of an extremely severe accident is different. As I mentioned earlier, in one of the accident scenarios we considered in our study we found, depending on the severity of the accident and whether the plan we have in place turns out on the day to be effective in mitigating the consequences of that accident, there could be an ensuing increase in cancer rates in Ireland. In summary, our view is that there is not a health risk from day-to-day operations but, on the other hand, there would be an increase in cancer risks if things went very badly wrong.

In terms of the risk to the food industry, again I would make the distinction between what happens on a day-to-day basis, either in regard to the existing plant or the proposed new locations, and the potential consequences in the case of a serious accident. Our assessments show that routine operations do not result in measurable levels of radioactivity in food that would pose a risk to the food industry. Again, however, for most of the accident scenarios we have considered, our assessment shows there could be - would be in some cases - a risk of food contamination. In that situation, there would be a threat to the food industry. Certainly, we are not saying otherwise. In terms of the health implications for the population arising out of that, our strategy for managing food contamination would be to implement food controls. However, it would undoubtedly be a serious issue for exporters. There is no doubt about that.

The Deputy also mentioned the report by the United Kingdom's National Audit Office which indicated that there is a risk to people and the environment in Britain arising from the older tanks at the Sellafield site. In terms of the implications for Ireland, the key question to consider is how the very large amount of radioactivity at Sellafield might be released and make its way across the Irish Sea. The Deputy will recall that in the case of the Chernobyl accident, it was an explosion that released the radioactivity up into the air, and it was carried by the weather across to Ireland. In the case of the older tanks at Sellafield, it is our understanding that there is not that type of energy available to lift the radioactivity into the air and bring it across to us. While we have concerns about many issues at the Sellafield site, our assessment is that the tanks do not have a particular potential impact for Ireland other than by some unusual route, where, for example, a meteorite were to hit a tank and release radioactivity into the environment. In such a scenario, an impact for Ireland cannot be ruled out.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The National Audit Office indicated that the tanks at Sellafield have deteriorated to such an extent that their contents pose a "significant risk" to people. There was no mention of meteorites or anything like that. The office stated that the actual condition of the tanks has deteriorated to the point that without ever being hit by a meteorite or Scud missile or anything else, their contents pose a significant risk to people and the environment.

Dr. Ann McGarry:

I apologise to the Deputy. I might not have explained myself correctly. The tanks at Sellafield are like swimming pools above ground. I have seen them myself and their integrity is not very good. If these swimming pools were to disintegrate, all of their contents would be released into the local environment. While this would be an absolute catastrophe for people living in the local area and the local environment, our view is that, given our distance from the site, the amount of radioactivity that would reach us in that scenario would be insufficient to pose a significant health risk.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, I understood the report issued last November, produced by eight international experts, indicated that in the event of a radioactive release from Sellafield, there would be no observable health risks for Ireland. Will Dr. McGarry clarify that? From what she has said and how the discussion has gone, the impression I am getting is that we cannot be certain of that assertion, that it is very much a grey area. Despite this, the independent international report to which I referred stated clearly that there was no observable health risk in the event of a radioactive leak from Sellafield, no matter how it came about.

Dr. Ann McGarry:

What I am saying is that there would be no observable health effects but there could be other effects.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Socioeconomic or otherwise but not health related?

Dr. Ann McGarry:

Yes.

Dr. Ann McGarry:

No. Radioactivity is present in the atmosphere everywhere. It is present in the ground so that refers to direct irradiation from radioactivity in the ground.

Dr. Ann McGarry:

I thank Deputy Murphy for the questions. She asked about the difference in potential impact between a re-processing plant and a nuclear power plant. The main difference is that a nuclear power plant is a real source of energy. If there is an explosion at a nuclear power plant, there is the potential for radioactivity to be released up high into the environment and to be transported in the weather across to Ireland. A re-processing plant does not have the same energy associated with it. In order to introduce energy to the situation to get the radioactivity over to Ireland, the kind of events considered were a strike by a meteorite etc., a different type of event entirely.

The Deputy also asked about compensation and whether that was factored into the cost of building. I am not entirely certain about that. I will ask my colleagues in a moment. There certainly are international conventions around nuclear liability so it is taken into account. The Deputy also asked how we compare with people living immediately adjacent to the plant, such as people in the UK living close to either Wylfa or Trawsfynydd or whatever. In terms of day-to-day operations, the radiation dose they receive is higher than that which we receive but it would be in the realm of no observable health effects. In the UK it would not be permitted to operate a nuclear plant on a day-to-day basis which had observable health effects on people. The radiation dose will be slightly higher the closer one is to a facility. The dose to Ireland from Sellafield is extremely low but what dose there is comes through eating contaminated fish or shellfish, so the amounts are very small.

I will ask my colleague, Ciara McMahon to talk about the various scenarios that we tested.

Dr. Ciara McMahon:

We studied five scenarios for releases to air. They covered situations where the nuclear power plant has lost its power for some external reason and the differing severity of that loss, whether it loses external power but still has batteries, whether it loses the batteries quickly or slowly and in situations where it loses its power and its cooling, the type of events that occurred at Fukushima. We did not study particularly what caused it to lose its power. The scenarios were taken from a recent study by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission which had brought together information and data on ways in which accidents can occur at this type of nuclear power plants. That data was collected over 25 years so it is state-of-the-art, up-to-date data on what would happen, how much radioactivity could be released, if a power plant were to lose its power and how quickly that happened.

We studied three scenarios for releases to sea, one in which the amount of radioactivity released to sea was equivalent to one year's discharges but over a short period rather than over a year; one in which it lost all of its cooling water, which would contain some radioactivity which would go into the Irish Sea over a short period; and, third, a scenario which was equivalent to the amount of radioactivity released to the Pacific Ocean after the Fukushima accident.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had some questions about the scenarios too and the definition of risk when those scenarios are examined. Dr. McMahon said it is uncertain what type of nuclear plant will be developed in the UK. I assume that in line with the technological advances in nuclear energy there have been similar advances in innovative safety measures to contain any risk. Is there any research on that area and how far has it advanced? If an accident does happen can it be fully contained, or can a percentage of it be contained? I know that is a very technical area but for the layman I would appreciate if the witnesses could expand a bit on that area, risk, the management of risk, and safety innovation in nuclear technology.

I recall some years ago, when I was much younger, there was controversy about the national emergency plan, and iodine tablets were distributed. When was the plan last reviewed? How was it communicated? What other State agencies does the institute or the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government work with, such as local authorities, Civil Defence and the Red Cross? What mechanism is used to get the message out if there is the need for an urgent reaction to a problem?

Dr. Ann McGarry:

I will turn to my colleague, Dr. Killian Smith to answer the Deputy’s question on the types of reactor and the advances and maybe Dr. McMahon will answer the question about the national emergency plan.

Dr. Killian Smith:

Two plants will be built in the UK. One is a European pressurised reactor. This design is being built in France and Finland so the design and technology are well known. A few of the second type of reactor are being built in the US and China. The UK is considering others which are being built elsewhere around the world.

In each generation of nuclear power plants the level of safety has always been increased and improved on the previous generation. We are now on the third or fourth generation of technology.

Dr. Ciara McMahon:

An emergency plan should always be under review and it is always being updated. Each organisation that has a role has its own plan. That includes the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland.

We keep it continually under review but we would have had a particular review after the Fukushima accident because we would have used elements of the plan in responding to that accident, even though the amount of radioactivity that reached Ireland was minuscule. Obviously, many international events were occurring. We had to work with colleagues in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, environmental health officers and so on in assessing any imports from Japan. We also had to give advice to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for any Irish people living in Japan. Certain elements of the plan were used in real life during the Fukushima accident and that was an opportunity for us to review it.

There are many organisations involved. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is the lead Department for the plan but it also involves our organisation, Met Éireann, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces, the Garda and many other organisations. We work closely with them and all the assessments we have done, both on the potential nuclear power plants and on the existing nuclear power plants around the world, have shown clearly that because of our distance from any nuclear power plants, the most important thing we have to protect to reduce people's radiation doses is the food chain. We put a great deal of our efforts, therefore, into ensuring Ireland has plans in place to deal with the potential contamination of the food chain to ensure we can prevent that contamination by taking certain early steps at farm level, and we work very closely with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to ensure those plans exist.

This morning we had a training session for experts from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. An expert group has been set up under the national emergency plan with experts from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. We would have regular training sessions. We are co-developing a handbook and updating that constantly with the best information available internationally but also on particular information of importance to Ireland in terms of where milk is produced, the procedures for getting information out and the best way of informing farmers or other groups such as food producers. We would work with the people who work with them all the time such as the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

In terms of the notification, Ireland is a signatory to two international notification systems, one through the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and one from the European Commission. In both cases the message comes to ourselves in the RPII in parallel with coming to the Garda communications centre because it operates on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week basis. We have somebody on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week and if a message comes in, we will be notified very quickly. A chain is set up in terms of notification of other organisations, and the Garda communications centre, with the help of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, maintains a list of the key contact people in all the relevant Departments. Very quickly, therefore, the message can be got out and then through the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government the message will be sent out to the local authorities in terms of keeping them up to date. Those structures are in place not just for this plan but also for all the other emergency plans, including the major emergency plans in which the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has a very strong role.

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. McMahon for that clarification. I wish to ask a question I intended to ask earlier relating to radon levels in the ground. I come from a constituency in Waterford where there is traditionally quite a high radon gas level. I acknowledge the work the RPII has put into raising awareness among the public. It held roadshows a few years ago which were very successful. It constantly encourages testing of people's homes and workplaces. Do the representatives consider it a good idea if testing were made obligatory, similar to the building energy rating, BER, certificate which is obligatory when a person wants to sell or lease a house? The incidence of radon gas levels is a more serious issue. I would like to get their views on whether they consider it would be a good idea for testing to be obligatory.

Dr. Ann McGarry:

The Deputy may be aware that we are finalising the national control strategy for radon and included in that is a recommendation that radon testing be introduced as part of the conveyancing process in order that it would be introduced when the houses are bought or sold. Primarily the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has been in touch with the relevant organisations in Ireland to examine how that might be implemented and we hope that would be implemented in the coming years. It would seem to be a very sensible way to address the issue.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives to the committee. They are the experts on radiation and the institute is charged under radiological protection legislation with assessing risk, advising the Government and assessing how it could be mitigated or what is likely to happen in the future. There are many types of types of radiation and we are talking about nuclear radiation in particular here. The Deputy seated to my left mentioned the incidence of radon gas. It is natural that there is concern about Sellafield, and mention of its name switches a light bulb on in people's heads, but that has dissipated other than what happened in Fukushima.

I have a particular interest in another type of radiation, EMF radiation. Does it come within the representatives' area of expertise? Concern about it has people up in arms. People are concerned about the health risks associated with radiation emanating from high voltage power lines. Even though the institute was established with the necessary expertise to protect us, that area does not seem to fall within its remit. Is such radiation a risk to health and what parameters need to be observed to ensure it does not impact on people's health? We must have an honest conversation about this issue. Much of the conversation that is taking place in the different parts of the country that will be affected by proposals for these lines is fractious and nobody believes anybody. How safe are 400 kV lines in terms of observing safe practice when they are located near houses, schools and centres of population? What is the practice across Europe and does laying the cables underground compound the problem or enhance safety? I am not talking about their visual impact, just their health impact. We go to many meetings and all we are being told is their impact in terms of cancer. There is not one person or family who is not concerned. I would appreciate it if the representatives could given me the science on this.

Dr. Ann McGarry:

I understand this is a very important issue. The remit of our institute in terms of radiation is to do with ionising radiation but the kind of radiation the Deputy mentioned, that related to EMF, power lines, etc., is non-ionising radiation. Unfortunately, we do not have expertise in that area. Therefore, I am not in a position to answer the Deputy's question on it.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it fair to say that radon gas comes within the institute's remit and there are public health concerns about the incidence of it?

Dr. Ann McGarry:

Yes.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there are equal public health concerns about EMF radiation and control of it and if that type of radiation does not come under the institute's remit, surely some other equally expert group would have to look after the interests of pubic health in that regard?

Dr. Ann McGarry:

The Deputy is right. Radon is also ionising radiation, therefore, it naturally falls within our remit. The Government examined the issue a number of years ago of giving our institute responsibility for non-ionising radiation, but that issue has not progressed. Therefore, we do not have any experts among our staff in that area. As a result, I am not in a position to answer the Deputy's question. That sounds as if I am fobbing her off but that is truth. It is not our area of expertise. We simply do not have experts in that area.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On what basis was the Government considering charging the institute with responsibility for dealing with non-ionising radiation, which would be EMF radiation?

Dr. Ann McGarry:

It was acknowledged in the legislation establishing our institute, even back then in the early 1990s, that at some point some scientific body may need to be charged with giving advice on this area. We were not given responsibility for that at that stage. There were some concerns a number of years ago and a committee was set up but I do not remember the details of it now. I was involved and we were asked to look at what would be needed for our institute to take it on. We looked at the practice in Sweden and in the UK and the kind of expertise they had and how they addressed the issue, but it did not progress beyond that.

We were never given functions in that area and I am afraid we do not have any expert in it either.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From our point of view - we hope we feed into policy formulation - is it the case that some agency, perhaps the RPII, needs to be charged with that function or that the level of public fear is exceeding the level of danger to human health? Should this be a priority for the Government, considering the general fear among communities on account of high power electricity lines? The fear is palpable. Does Dr. McGarry consider it should be a priority from the point of view of needing a more detailed examination from a health perspective?

Dr. Ann McGarry:

All I can say on the issue is that in other countries some of the agencies similar to ours that deal with ionising radiation also deal with non-ionising radiation and have scientific experts who can advise the government on the health risks in relation to electromagnetic fields. In other countries there are scientific experts associated with bodies such as our own, but I am afraid we do not have that expertise.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. McGarry. That concludes our interaction with the RPII. I thank all of its representatives for the informative way in which they have interacted with us. When I saw the doctors coming, I thought they were going to give us the flu jab. I thank them, once again, for their interaction with the committee.

Dr. Ann McGarry:

I thank the Chairman and all members of the committee.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will ask members to review the documentation we have received and to bring comments they might have to the attention of the clerk to the committee next week and we will discuss them at a future meeting. I again thank the delegates.