HC Deb 03 June 1986 vol 98 cc493-4W
Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of (a) the number of curies of alpha activity in the total estimated future quantity of low-level waste up to 2030, and (b) the increased cost of disposal if the alpha activity were removed.

Mrs. Rumbold

Low-level waste is subject to an upper limit of 4GBq/tonne for alpha activity. The total quantity cannot be reliably estimated; nor, therefore, can the cost of removing it.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in considering the list of suggested dumps, he sought evidence from Dr. Michael Heath or considered Dr. Heath's report of Greenpeace on the sites.

Mrs. Rumbold

No.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many petition signatures. letters and deputations (a) for and (b) against nuclear dumping he has had up to the end of May in connection with nuclear dumps at South Killingholme, Fulbeck, Elstow and Bradwell.

Mrs. Rumbold

Between 25 February, when potential sites were announced, and the end of May, the numbers of letters received in the Department opposing the siting of a radioactive waste facility were approximately as follows: South Killingholme 320: Fulbeck 275; Elstow 230; Bradwell 55. A number of postcards were also received. Four letters were received in favour of NIREX investigating the suitability of a particular site; three from South Killingholme and one from Bradwell. In addition, approximately 150 letters were received on the subject of radioactive waste management generally.

In the same period, my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have together or separately met 14 deputations, in London and the areas concerned. I shall write to the hon. Members about the number of petition signatures received.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment who is responsible for the costs of security at the proposed four sites for nuclear waste dumps; and what financial arrangements have been made for compensation to contractors in the event of damage to equipment.

Mrs. Rumbold

The costs of general security at the four sites remain a matter for the site owners in the first instance. Should they incur extra costs because of NIREX's interest in the sites, this would be a matter for negotiation between them and NIREX. NIREX will be responsible for the costs of security arrangements which it itself contracts for. Any compensation arrangements with contractors, if needed, would be for negotiation between NIREX and the firms concerned.