Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-312"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.12.2-312"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"From an Irish perspective we are witnessing the beginning of the end of reprocessing at Sellafield and we have allies. The powers of the Commission in this area as the responsible Community institution remain hopelessly inadequate, embarrassingly inadequate. No uniform standards for safety and discharges, no Community consultation procedure concerning power stations sited near frontiers, no clear Community provisions for the storage and transport of nuclear fuels or nuclear waste, no adequate Community system of information and monitoring in cases of nuclear malfunction.
Nuclear safety in the enlargement process is a major cause for concern. As there are no prescribed criteria in EU law governing the design or operation of nuclear facilities, how do we judge their safety of operation? Realists accept and understand that life is full of risks. Society usually accepts a certain level of risk in return for an advantage and proponents of nuclear energy almost inevitably remind us of the balance of risk and benefit. What benefit accrues to Ireland for the risk of being exposed to the majority of Britain's nuclear installations?
If nuclear safety and nuclear energy are so safe, why are not the majority of these installations located near the population centres of the south-east of England? To minimise the risk to these population centres of course. But seen from an Irish perspective, this stands logic on its head, we have counties Antrim, Down, Louth, Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford where the vast majority of the population of the island of Ireland, about 2 million people, live on or adjacent to the Irish sea where the majority of British nuclear institutions are sited.
Furthermore in recent years, we have all seen how consumer concern about the integrity of the food chain can devastate a once seemingly secure market. Witness the BSE and dioxin problem. We can only begin to imagine the effect of any kind of nuclear scare – just a scare – on these sectors of our economy. Choice about exposure to risk for oneself or for one's children is a very basic human right. This right to determine, to control, to have any say about the risk of nearby concentrations of nuclear installations is denied to those of us who inhabit the western shores of the Irish sea. In practice, nuclear decision-making in the UK falls far short of democratic standards. Often questionable decisions are made behind a wall of secrecy.
I will conclude. The reality of Sellafield goes beyond the contribution to the Kyoto targets on the dependence of the UK economy on nuclear energy. It also includes a litany of unreported incidents, falsified quality control checks on MOX fuel rods resulting in the loss of confidence by the Japanese in safety standards at the plant and the cancellation by the Germans and the Swiss of mixed oxide nuclear fuel pellets.
The reality of Sellafield includes incidents last September and early this year of deliberate sabotage, allegedly by members of the staff. Serious doubts are being raised about the long-term viability of reprocessing. Their order books are full for a few more years, but no new orders are coming in due to the quality of control lapse at the MOX plant. Even the new CEO, Mr Norman Askew, is reported as saying that reprocessing is not the big part of the business it once was. A director has publicly stated the future of the plant is in doubt. But a nuclear future for Sellafield can be justified: not mixed oxide fuel production, not thermal oxide reprocessing at the MOX and THORP plants. The skills and the experience of the workforce and the major capital investment could and should be redirected towards waste management and the creation of a centre of excellence for decommissioning and that is what I suggest we concentrate the debate on."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples