Nuclear Dumping: Sea-bed Radiation Risk (Hansard, 7 March 1994)

The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is contributing to international efforts to monitor and assess radioactivity from these sources. The evidence we have to date is that there is no threat to human health or to the marine environment.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I welcome the British Government's decision, announced last month, not to dump nuclear material on the sea-bed, although it is not strictly necessary from a scientific point of view. However, what is being done about the results of accidents such as the Soviet nuclear submarine reported as sunk in 1986 and lying on the ocean floor in the area of Bermuda?

Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his initial remarks. Our recent acceptance of the London convention ban on the dumping of radioactive wastes was in recognition of the weight of international opinion against the practice. However, we remain convinced that the scientific evidence shows that dumping at sea, carried out under controlled conditions, causes no harm to the marine environment and poses no risk to human health. The convention will undertake a scientific re-evaluation within 25 years and we shall actively contribute to that.
As regards the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, we are aware of the press reports indicating that seven years ago a Soviet submarine sank 500 miles off Bermuda. Routine monitoring around our nuclear powered submarine berth has indicated no abnormalities and we have no reason to believe that the submarine presents a hazard to the marine environment or to Bermuda.

§ Lord Mason of Barnsley
My Lords, with regard to the London convention on dumping which was held last November, where 37 countries voted for an international ban on nuclear dumping at sea, on that occasion Her Majesty's Government abstained along with four other countries. Perhaps the Minister will explain why and bring us up to date on that agreement. Further, the 1234 Russians are obviously the worst culprits as regards sunken nuclear submarines, three of which have been lost at sea. Since then seven nuclear reactors have been dumped at sea. We are now decommissioning our nuclear submarines. What will be our policy on that?

Earl Howe
My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, as I explained to my noble friend, the United Kingdom is not convinced that dumping at sea, provided that it is carried out under controlled conditions, causes any harm at all to the marine environment. That is why we have said that we shall be ready to reopen discussions in the convention at any time should the weight of international opinion change in favour of accepting the scientific conclusions.
With regard to submarines belonging to the former Soviet Union which have sunk in various oceans around the world, I have already mentioned the reports which we have received about the submarine which sank off Bermuda. We are aware that another submarine sank in Norwegian waters in 1989 and international monitoring of that site is continuing. However, the scientific reports indicate that there is no threat to the marine environment from that source either.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, is it not absolutely essential that nuclear waste should be disposed of in such a way that it can be monitored and retrieved, if necessary, in the future? Surely the Government must see that in our present state of knowledge we still have a lot to learn. Unless we can monitor what happens to nuclear waste, we are perhaps posing great dangers for future generations.

Earl Howe
My Lords, the international monitoring effort on nuclear waste at sea continues. In Arctic waters the effort is led by the Norwegians and we are playing our part to support their work. I would reassure the noble Baroness that every effort is made to ensure that these monitoring exercises are continuous and that the results are followed up.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, how long does the noble Earl expect these ecological time bombs to tick away at the bottom of our oceans before they are truly safe?

Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the effect of nuclear waste persists for a long period of time. We shall continue to monitor the sites where we are aware nuclear waste exists, but at many of these sites the waste is situated at great depths and that is why scientific opinion is unanimous that the threat to the marine environment is infinitesimal.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on this side of the House are glad that the Government decided last month to adhere to the ban on nuclear dumping at sea? Does he not also accept that nuclear dumping at sea under controlled conditions is not the substance of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, which is concerned with dumping under uncontrolled conditions? Does not the Minister agree that the deliberate scuttling of nuclear submarines, as was carried out by the former Soviet Union in the Arctic— I believe seven or eight nuclear 1235 submarines were scuttled— could indeed pose a grave threat to health? Could not something be done to monitor and, if necessary, to remove those submarines?

Earl Howe
My Lords, the UK fully supports the concern about past illegal Russian and Soviet disposal of radioactive waste, which was expressed in the economic declaration following the G7 summit in Tokyo last July. The current evidence shows that the level of radioactivity in the Kara and Barents Seas, where the focus of attention has rested, is negligible and poses no threat to the marine environment or to human health. However, as I explained, we shall continue to co-operate with the international monitoring exercise. In the light of the scientific evidence which becomes available, we shall keep our position under review.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, there is anxiety in North Wales and beyond that radiation is seeping from Sellafield into the Irish Sea. Can the noble Earl say whether or not there is any validity in that worry and complaint?

Earl Howe
My Lords, it is true that a proportion of some radionuclides — for example, caesium-137— discharged from Sellafield has been transported into the Irish Sea and from thence into the North Sea and the central Arctic. However, the radiological impact has been very low as the concentrations have been diluted. It is worth emphasising that the discharge levels which are now permitted by HMIP and MAFF are considerably below those which prevailed during the 1970s and the 1980s.