§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites which were initially investigated by NIREX for possible exploration as sites for nuclear waste disposal which had similar geological and environmental conditions as those sites eventually selected but were not on property owned by Government departments or NIREX partners.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on 18 March at column92.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consideration, visits, research or study of local effects he and his Department carried out on the suitability of Killingholm as a possible site for a nuclear dump after its name was put forward by NIREX;
(2) what recent review he has conducted of the site selection process for nuclear waste dumps.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 February at column505.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the process of informing the public in the locality of nuclear dump sites will include discussions of the reasons for choosing particular sites.
§ Mr. WaldegraveNIREX has already made public the factors that it took into account in selecting potential sites.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make available to members of the general public all technical papers relating to the selection of possible sites for nuclear waste disposal.
§ Mr. WaldegraveNIREX has already produced information on its site selection process. It is willing to make available the results of its geological investigations of sites for which planning permission is to be sought by a special development order. We shall arrange for NIREX's proposals to be independently assessed. The results of the assessment will be made public.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish an assessment of existing and future railway facilities in respect of each of the sites selected by NIREX for possible nuclear waste disposal.
§ Mr. WaldegraveNIREX is required to prepare an environmental assessment of any site for which it submits a planning application. This will include an assessment of rail access.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy, in respect of nuclear waste disposal sites (i) to publish site selection 29W criteria in advance of each type of waste disposal route and (ii) to remove from NIREX to his Department responsibility for shortlisting future sites.
§ Mr. WaldegraveWe have already published the criteria we expect to see fulfilled for land disposal sites. These are set out in the booklet "Disposal Facilities on Land for Low and Intermediate Level Wastes: Principles for the Protection of the Human Environment", published by HMSO in December 1984. Copies are in the Library. It is right that the responsibility for initial site selection should remain with NIREX.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific proposals he now has to compensate home owners and local authorities for blight on values and development during the preliminary geological explorations of the four possible sites for nuclear dumping.
§ Mr. WaldegraveOn the basis of what has happened at Elstow, I would not expect preliminary geological investigations to cause blight to any significant extent. However, NIREX has already stated its intention to provide compensation for householders within a radius of one mile of any eventually selected site. In addition, I understand that NIREX may be willing to consider any particular cases that arose as a result of the recent announcement of sites to be investigated.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters and petition signatures, for and against, he has received on the subject of nuclear waste up to 1 April 1986 about (a) Killingholme, (b) Fulbeck, (c) Elstow, (d) Bradwell and (e) the general subject of nuclear waste.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe table gives the approximate number of representations, excluding petition signatures, received in respect of each area between 25 February when the four potential disposal sites were announced and 1 April:
Number (a) Killingholme 15,500 (b) Fulbeck 100 (c) Elstow 50 (d) Bradwell 20 (e) Nuclear waste generally 70 Postcard correspondence organised by Humberside county council comprises all except 103 of the representations in respect of South Killingholme. Considerable correspondence about Elstow was received between October 1983, when that site was first announced, and February this year. Some correspondence about Killingholme was received when that site was rumoured to be on NIREX's short list, before it was announced. Six petitions, containing about 380 signatures, in respect of South Killingholme, and one petition, containing 16 signatures, in respect of Fulbeck have also been received. All representations express concern.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will delay the issue of a special development order allowing preliminary exploration of possible nuclear dump sites until the First Report of the Environment Committee on nuclear waste is debated by the House.
30W
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe special development order will only authorise geological investigations at the sites concerned. There will be ample opportunity to take into account the views of Members on the Select Committee's report before any decisions are taken on whether to develop a particular site.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to visit Killingholme before laying a special development order for exploration of nuclear sites.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI hope to visit each of the potential sites named by NIREX before the special development order is debated. I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I am able to be more specific.