I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24 to 28, 30 to 37, 39, 41 to 47, 50 to 53, 59 to 62, 64 to 67, 69, 70, 74 and 75 together.
The House will be aware that early this year, we sent a detailed and wide-ranging submission to the UK Minister for the Environment and the UK Inspectorate of Pollution. This submission conveyed in the strongest possible terms the Government's total opposition to the continued operation of all nuclear activities carried out at Sellafield and to any expansion of these activities. In particular the submission expressed the Government's grave concerns about commissioning the proposed new THORP plant on the site and the proposed new levels of authorised discharges from Sellafield into the atmosphere and the Irish Sea and called for a public inquiry to be held before any decision is taken to proceed.
On 28 June, last, the UK Secretary of State for the Environment announced that, after consideration by him and the UK Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, of the report of the Inspectorate of Pollution, it has been concluded that no points of substance had been raised that should cause them to reconsider the terms of the draft authorisations. However, because a high volume of submissions, including ours, had raised questions as to the justification for the operation of THORP it was decided to delay the commissioning of the plant until a further round of consultations to deal with the wider issues has been held.
Following consideration of material published by the UK authorities, we made a second and more comprehensive submission on behalf of the Government to the UK authorities. In addition to detailing our previously stated opposition to the THORP plant, this last submission concludes that, as THORP will serve no overall useful purpose, there is no justification for the increased risk of radiation exposure that the public will receive from the plant. We have also concluded, in a separate detailed examination of British Nuclear Fuel's economics of reprocessing at THORP, that there are no demonstrable overall economic or security benefits arising from THORP's operation which would justify it or balance out possible and likely risks to public health and environmental damage. Copies of the full submission have been made available to Members of the Oireachtas in the Library of this House.
In this submission we renewed our call on the UK authorities to hold a full, open and independent public inquiry to deal with the basic justification for operating the THORP plant in the circumstances now prevailing as well as the technical aspects of the revised discharge authorisations. The UK Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have statutory responsibility for considering whether to hold a hearing or inquiry, will not take a final decision on this question until they have considered all submissions.
I am aware of some media reports that Germany is proposing to change its law about the management of spent nuclear fuel. Of course, I would welcome such a development. We raised this aspect in our second submission and challenged the claims of BNFL in its submission on the economics of reprocessing at THORP. We pointed out in our submission that, while the contractual position of BNFL for the first ten years of THORP operation appears strong, such a change in German law would probably have a serious effect on the economic case for THORP in the longer term put forward by BNFL.
I am aware also that a letter, signed by two former United States CIA chiefs and a number of other prominent Americans, including leading scientists, was sent to the UK Prime Minister which warned that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons. We had already raised these concerns in our submission to the UK authorities and referred specifically to the concerns expressed by the US authorities and the International Atomic Energy Agency on this particular matter. I should add that it is not intended that any fissionable material, including plutonium extracted from spent fuel at THORP, would be used for nuclear weapons and all such material will be safeguarded under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. There remains a risk that such material could, nevertheless, at some time be diverted to military or terrorist uses. For that reason we stated in our submission that there were already substantial quantities of unwanted plutonium in store and THORP would make this situation worse by adding to the stockpile and increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation.
With regard to the question of an environmental impact assessment on THORP the UK view is that, as approval for the construction of the plant was given in 1978, it does not come within the timeframe of the EC Directive dealing with the environmental effects of certain public and private projects which only came into effect in 1988. In our submission we stated that, "given the scale and potential impact of the plant and the lapse of time and knowledge of radiation hazards acquired since planning approval for the project was given in 1978, the Irish Government considers that it would be appropriate to have an environmental impact assessment carried out now on the basis of the EC Directive as part of a full public inquiry". On this aspect I am aware that, in addition to Ireland, the UK Government has received correspondence on this point from Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. I am aware that the UK Government has received a letter from the EC Commission seeking information in relation to the THORP plant at Sellafield. This correspondence, however, is treated in confidence and not made available to other member states.
Deputies will be aware that, in addition to the two submissions on THORP, the Government has, on many occasions, requested the UK Government to close Sellafield and emphasised Ireland's total opposition to the plant. Our concerns in relation to the plant have also been expressed at every available opportunity in the European Community and other international fora. We will continue to pursue this line of total opposition. The question of raising this matter at the European Council of Foreign Ministers is a matter for the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.
While the Government has always been and continues to be committed to legal action against Sellafield if a sufficient case for it can be shown to exist, it will not initiate such action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence. The Attorney General has advised that any such legal action would have to be based on scientific evidence as to the injurious effects of operations at the Sellafield plant on Ireland. In 1992 the EC Commission examined the implications of THORP and issued an official opinion that the implementation of the plant for the disposal of radioactive waste from THORP is not liable, either in normal operation or in the case of an accident, to result in radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another member state. Furthermore there is no evidence to date to suggest that activities at the entire complex, including the proposed operation of the THORP plant, are or will be in breach of EC law and international conventions which would sustain a successful legal action. The Government is open to information and evidence from any source to support a sustainable case regarding closure of Sellafield. We are at present consulting with the Attorney General to decide what action, if any, may be possible if THORP is allowed to proceed without first holding a hearing or inquiry.