§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of all the representations he has received from other Governments(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to THORP; and if he will indicate whether any intergovernmental correspondence arose in each case.
§ Mr. AtkinsI refer the hon. Member to my answer given to the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on Monday 29 November,Official Report, columns 385–86. In addition, letters have been received from the Governments of Japan and Iceland. All have been notified of the decisions of the Secretary of State and Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning discharge authorisations for the Sellafield site, as has the Environment Minsiter of each EC member state and the EC environment commissioner. Correspondence between the United Kingdom and overseas Governments or the EC Commission is treated in confidence.
§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 449, how many civil servants were involved in the preparation of the United Kingdom submission to the European Commission on article 37 on radioactive waste discharges from THORP; and what was the cost of preparing the document.
§ Mr. AtkinsA number of civil servants were involved in preparing the "General Data relating to the arrangements for Disposal of Radioactive Wastes" as called for under article 37 of the Euratom treaty. The cost of preparing the document is not readily ascertainable.
§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the responses to which he refers in his report on BNFL Sellafield further public consultation, published on 15 December, were submitted in a language other than English; and what arrangements were made to translate such submissions.
§ Mr. AtkinsA few responses in German were received and read. About 1,300 proforma responses were also received from Japan in English as well as in Japanese.
§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the basis of his statement in
826W
Departmental energy expenditure £ million Department 1990–91 1991–92 1992–93 MAFF—Main Estates 3.2 3.6 3.9 —Buffer Depots 0.1 0.1 0.1 Cabinet Office 0.4 0.5 0.5 Customs and Excise 2.1 3.4 3.6 Defence—Civil 4.5 5.5 5.9 —Royal Navy —Army 167.7 195.8 200.7 —RAF —Procurement Executive 11.0 11.3 —Defence Research Agency 22.9 13.9 11.5 Education 0.5 0.7 0.5 paragraph 26 of his decision document on THORP of 15 December, that there are no risk-free options for energy supply; and if he will list the risks for each energy production or conversion technology.
§ Mr. AtkinsIt is evident that industrial activities in the energy sector will involve risks, both for workers and the public. These will inevitably arise from such activities as construction and transport and may also arise from the disposal or discharge of wastes or combustion products. There may also be major accident risks, as exemplified by the Aberfan and Piper Alpha disasters.
As regards the hon. Member's request for quantification of the various risks, information is available from a number of published studies. Among these are the Health and Safety Executive's 1992 publication "The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations" and the document "The Safety of Nuclear Power"—safety series no. 75—INSAG—5—published in 1992 by the International Atomic Energy Agency.