§ Mr. ChaytorTo ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the costs of(a) introducing technetium-99 abatement technology and (b) storage facilities in order to reduce Sellafield's discharges to 10 terabecquerels per year: and if she will make a statement. [40496]
§ Mr. Meacher[holding answer 11 March 2002]: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have not carried out any separate cost assessment of their own. They have before them the cost assessment carried out by the Environment Agency, as set out in the agency's proposed decision published in September 2001. The agency's document sets out in some detail considerations of costs for the various technetium-99 abatement techniques that have been considered, and for a range of schemes to partially or fully replace the B211 facility where medium active concentrate (MAC), containing technetium-99, is stored. Costs are given both as undiscounted costs and present value costs, and they are further broken down into capital, operating and decommissioning costs. Where appropriate, the costs of combining abatement techniques with each other and with new storage facilities are also considered.
The undiscounted cost of introducing so-called "TPP abatement" would be in the order of £3 million, whereas "MAC Diversion" costs would be in the range £14V90 million. The so-called "end of pipe" abatement techniques that have been identified by BNFL are estimated to cost in the range of 76£256 million. Replacement of the B211 storage facility to include replacement of the current MAC storage capacity would cost in the order of £450 million. BNFL are also assessing options for refurbishing the B211 facility, which would be notably cheaper.