§ Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on meetings he has had with representatives of the ENSEC method of nuclear waste disposal;
(2) when he last had discussions relating to the ENSEC method of nuclear waste disposal; and if he will make a statement;
(3) what discussions he has had with the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive regarding the ENSEC method of nuclear waste disposal; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. WaldegraveMy right hon. Friend has not had any meetings with representatives of ENSEC Ltd. although I did so on 2 November 1983. With regard to discussions with NIREX, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 11 March 1986 at columns431–2. In the course of these discussions the ENSEC proposal has been raised.
§ Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the alternative methods of nuclear waste disposal, apart from land dumping, which have been presented to his Department for consideration;
(2) what is his Department's assessment of the safety implications of using the ENSEC method of nuclear waste disposal;
(3) what is his Department's assessment of the environmental implications of using the ENSEC method of nuclear waste disposal;
(4) what assessment his Department has made of the potential uses of the ENSEC method of nuclear waste disposal; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe study of best practicable environmental options (BPEOs) for the management of low and intermediate level wastes, recently completed under my Department's direction, examined all the main alternative management methods. The options considered were—sea disposal; near-surface land burial in simple trenches; near-surface land burial in concrete-lined trenches preceded by 10 years' storage for current stocks of wastes; land burial in deep cavities, preceded by, respectively, 15, 45 and 200 years' storage for current stocks; burial in off-shore boreholes preceded by 15 years' storage for current stocks; and long-term surface storage.
Copies of the report are in the Library.
91WThe study's assessment of off-shore disposal was based on an outline proposal by ENSEC. The study found that the option would be unnecessarily complex and expensive for low-level and shorter-lived intermediate level wastes. For longer-lived intermediate level radioactive wastes, the option would be comparable in terms of cost and radiological impact with land burial in deep cavities. Site-specific studies and engineering designs would be necessary to determine which option was the BPEO. The concept of disposing of wastes in offshore boreholes is not so well-developed as that of deep land disposal. Wastes buried offshore would not be so easily retrievable.
§ Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive to prepare a public consultation document on any alternative method of nuclear waste disposal which it has considered.
§ Mr. WaldegraveNo. The Government have the responsibility for determining the overall strategy for the management of radioactive waste, including optimum disposal routes. It is, therefore, for the Government to consult on the options as they arise; and this they have done, in the production of the report on the study of the best practicable environmental options for the management of low and intermediate level radioactive waste made public on 13 March.
§ Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, when he meets the chairman of the CEGB on 26 March, he will raise with him the ENSEC method of nuclear waste disposal; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if he will instruct the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive to investigate the ENSEC method of nuclear waste disposal; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 30 October 1985 at column531. Until the results of the feasibility studies commissioned by NIREX are known it would be premature to consider other possible studies or to include them in discussions with the chairman of the CEGB on 26 March.
§ Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental groups he has consulted in formulating his policy regarding nuclear dumping.
§ Mr. WaldegraveMost recently, my Department consulted seven national environmental and amenity groups during the preparation of the assessment of best practicable environmental options for the management of low and intermediate level solid radioactive wastes. The groups concerned were the Council for Environmental Conservation, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth, the Green Alliance, Greenpeace, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the Town and Country Planning Association.
§ Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he will not publish the names of all sites considered by the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive since 1 January 1985 as possibilities for the dumping of nuclear waste.
92W
§ Mr. WaldegraveI do not know the sites considered by NIREX.