Seanad debates

Wednesday, 25 May 2005

6:00 pm

Photo of Brendan KenneallyBrendan Kenneally (Fianna Fail)

I regret that my time for contributing to this motion is so limited, for it deals with an important subject. Sellafield has health and safety implications for everyone currently living on this island. In addition, given that some nuclear material can remain active for thousands of years, the implications for future generations are clear. The official website of the Sellafield complex shows that the programme of work for managing the nuclear facility is scheduled to continue for the next 150 years.

Item 35 on Sellafield's official website deals with the managing director's commitment to the people of Britain. Apparently, therefore, we, on this side of the Irish Sea, do not count. The managing director states that Sellafield "represents the most challenging nuclear site management programme in the world". The site manager's message states:

Management services, Sellafield, have the skills, experience and commitment to deliver this life-cycle baseline [that is the programme for the future] safely, securely and with care for the environment. We will continue to aggressively drive down our costs, providing greater value-for-money delivery for the taxpayer.

That seems to sum up the priority of the facility, namely, to reduce costs and make money. What is the scale of the financial turnover of the facility? The report states that Sellafield will "introduce our plans to significantly accelerate the reduction in radiological risk and hazard on the site, whilst securing commercial income in excess of £8.2 billion from the provision of spent fuel services". That is a considerable income and it appears that it is worth securing with greater efficiency and zeal than the efforts made to protect the health of Irish people across a narrow stretch of the Irish Sea.

In any political conflict between the abstract health, safety and protection of people outside a jurisdiction and those within it, who are economically dependent on the Sellafield facility, which will win out? Consider these simple statistics, again from an official source:

The Sellafield site covers an area of approximately 2 square miles and has been operational since the 1940s. The site comprises more than 200 nuclear facilities, represents some 60% of the total UK civil nuclear liability to be discharged by the NDA, and provides work for over 10,000 people, 95 % of whom live within 30 miles of the site.

In other words, Sellafield represents a huge political commitment, or a political minefield if it closes with the loss of a high proportion of those 10,000 jobs, and the Irish people are treated as no better than pawns in the game.

The management of Sellafield declares that "Sellafield represents the most challenging nuclear site management programme in the world. Management Services, Sellafield, has an unrivalled understanding of the site and a demonstrated ability to deliver improved safety and environmental performance whilst exceeding production targets and delivering clean-up." I would like to believe that but it must be read against a background and history of mistakes, cover-ups, lies, forged and falsified records, accidents and bungling inefficiency, the kind of mistakes and deception which, in any other private facility, would see its management fired forthwith.

To get some idea of the scale of the operation in Sellafield and the enormity of the task facing any Irish Government we should look at the timescale for the next 150 years. By 2016, all commercial operations associated with reprocessing, MOX fuel manufacture and vitrification of high level waste are to be completed. By 2040, all legacy wastes should be retrieved, packaged and stored and shipment of those intermediate level waste materials should have commenced to the intermediate level waste repository. By 2075, all intermediate level waste should be shipped to repository and shipment of high level waste to its repository should have commenced. By 2150, the site should be in a safe, passive state, subject to institutional controls pending final decision on its future.

The only certainty today is that none of us will be around in 2150.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.