Dáil debates

Thursday, 17 February 2005

Adjournment Debate.

Nuclear Safety.

5:00 pm

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas don Cheann Comhairle as cead a thabhairt dom an cheist seo a ardú ar an Athló agus cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Oideachais agus Eolaíochta. Labharfaidh mé leis an Aire atá freagach as seo arís.

This issue is of enormous concern not just to people in Ireland, but to anyone worldwide who is concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and plutonium as a material. We want answers on this issue. In light of this morning's report from the United States Administration that terror groups are planning either chemical or nuclear attacks, it is alarming to hear on the same news reports that 30 kilograms of plutonium was reported missing at Sellafield.

The British nuclear group, part of BNFL, describes it as a paper loss. As if to reassure us, it states that it is not of concern to them because they work in tonnes, not kilograms. I doubt that would be of any comfort. The reality is that we should not tolerate the creation of plutonium in milligrams, kilograms or tonnes. The deadliness of plutonium is clear when we recall that, spread evenly around the world, six kilograms of the material would be sufficient to give everyone lung cancer. Therefore, the deadliness of the material is unquestionable. The reason plutonium was first made must be borne in mind. It was used to make bombs and weapons of mass destruction. The reason this country was happy to give succour and facilities to the bombing of Iraq was in the name of doing away with weapons of mass destruction.

What we are dealing with here is material for weapons of mass destruction. Some 14 countries are currently storing 235 metric tonnes of separated plutonium, enough for 40,000 Nagasaki-sized bombs. That amount is growing by between five and ten tonnes a year. Sellafield and the organisation that runs that plant assures us that they have safety and security in order. Even after the 11 September attacks in the United States, there were 45 security breaches last year at civil nuclear sites in the UK. While nuclear experts accept some discrepancy in the figures, Dr. Frank Barnaby said that the loss of 30 kg is a dramatic development. In 2003, there was a loss of 19 kg and over the past ten years there was an accumulated loss of 50 kg. Some 30 kilograms is a great loss of nuclear material.

I asked the Tánaiste this morning — perhaps the Minister will be able to answer me — whether the Irish Government was told about this before the media were told or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency report was released. The Government claimed at the time of the court case that it had won a concession that it would be in the loop, that information would be shared about British nuclear incidents or issues of concern, and this is certainly one of them. I would like to know whether the UK ambassador has been called in to explain the matter or what action has been taken.

Given that the US wants to end reprocessing — the vast majority of people in the world would like to end reprocessing because its only use is to make bombs — and that Ireland was the author and first signatory of a non-proliferation treaty, will the Government convene an international effort to reach a consensus needed to force an end to reprocessing and thereby a reduction of the threat of nuclear weapons? Will the Government address the basic injustice in the EU where the nuclear industry is effectively being promoted and getting the lion's share of research over the combined renewable energies because the EURATOM treaty is a protocol attached to the EU constitution and continues which have favoured place? These matters must be addressed. Will the Government ensure that the sunset clause is included so that the EURATOM treaty fades into the past where it belongs?

Photo of Mary HanafinMary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Sargent for allowing me to take this matter on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

I understand the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels plc and Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited today published details of the nuclear materials balance arising from the use of plutonium and-or uranium in their civil nuclear programmes during 2003 and 2004. Publication of these figures is a voluntary industry practice in the UK introduced in 1977 and repeated annually. On 10 December last, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, together with the British ambassador, announced the outcome to date of the discussions between the UK and Ireland arising from the legal action brought by Ireland against the UK under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Minister, Deputy Roche, reported previously to the House on the improved co-operation and information exchange mechanisms put in place arising from these discussions. In accordance with these improved co-operation measures, the Minister directed his officials to raise this matter with the UK authorities to establish the position regarding media reports to the effect that 30 kg of plutonium material had been "lost" or had "disappeared" at Sellafield. Arising from these contacts with the UK Administration, the Minister understands that in the figures published, 30 kg of plutonium has been attributed as "material unaccounted for". This term represents the difference between measured stock and the book account. It arises as a consequence of the accounting process for these nuclear materials and mainly from measurement uncertainties.

The Minister received assurances from the UK Government that the figures in this case relate to a "book" discrepancy arising from measurement uncertainties and that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the apparent losses reported are real losses of nuclear material. Apparently, it is not unusual for the accounting process to indicate material unaccounted for and it can have a positive or negative value. The figures published today relate to 2003 and 2004 and have all long since been reported to EURATOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency under the UK's various nuclear safeguards obligations. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, understands that the figures returned are not the subject of further inquiry by these bodies and that they are all within international standards of expected measurement accuracies for closing a nuclear balance at the type of facility concerned. The British Government does not believe the figures have any implications for the state of security at Sellafield and there is no suggestion that any of this material is unaccounted for because of theft or anything else to do with site or transport security.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They cannot find it.

Photo of Mary HanafinMary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The UK has emphasised that nuclear materials are protected at all times and levels of security at nuclear sites are very high. All sites are required to comply with a security plan approved by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security and the measures taken exceed international requirements in this area. The Minister, Deputy Roche, has asked the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to review the information available and advise him accordingly. Should high level action be indicated arising from its advice, he will raise the matters directly with his ministerial counterparts in the UK.

With regard to the generation and stockpiling of plutonium generally, it is clear that the present security climate throughout the world is extremely difficult. In this climate, the security implications of the nuclear spent fuel reprocessing industry, in which Sellafield plays a significant role, must be critically addressed. The strong view of the Government is that reprocessing, which results in the transport of spent fuel throughout the world, the transformation of this fuel and the generation of additional nuclear waste and significant amounts of plutonium and other nuclear materials, which must then be transported back and ultimately stockpiled, is correspondingly more problematic. For this reason, the Government is opposed to the continued reprocessing of spent fuel at Sellafield and will continue to utilise all legal and diplomatic opportunities to bring it to an end.

On behalf of the Government, the Minister, Deputy Roche, will continue on a bilateral basis with the UK to articulate the concerns and protect the interests of Irish citizens regarding nuclear reprocessing and ensure these views are articulated consistently and cogently at relevant international fora such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Union.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 February 2005.