§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how long, in general, intermediate-level nuclear waste has to be stored before it becomes low-level nuclear waste.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe length of storage will depend entirely on the radionuclides present and their half-lives.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his Department's report on best practicable environmental options for disposal of nuclear waste from those organisations consulted during its drafting; and how many of these representations were critical, favourable or neutral, respectively.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI received a number of favourable comments as well as constructive criticisms on the draft final report made available in November 1985.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what relative weight the authors of the report on best practicable environmental options for disposal of nuclear waste were asked to give to (a) the cost of disposal and (b) safety.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe authors were not directed to give any specific weight to cost of disposal and safety. The range of weights reflects the views of the experts involved in the study.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent storage costs of nuclear waste have been revised downwards since the preparation of his Department's report on best practicable environmental options.
§ Mr. WaldegraveSubsequent studies suggest that the assessment of storage costs in the BPEO report were good. I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of a report on "Implications of long-term surface or near-surface storage of intermediate and low-level radioactive wastes in the United Kingdom" which gives further details.
77W
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of the 18 independent consultants who were involved in the drawing up of the assessment of best practicable environmental options for managment of low and intermediate-level solid radioactive wastes; and what are their individual areas of specialist knowledge.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI shall write to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his response to the recommendation of the Environment Committee in paragraph 280 of the report on radioactive waste, that responsibility for final short listing of possible nuclear dump sites shall rest with his Department rather than NIREX; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe Government's response to the Environment Committee's recommendation 36 was set out in paragraphs 42 to 44 of the Government's first stage response on 2 May 1986 to the Committee's report.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he received from firms and individuals concerned in the food industry about the inclusion of Killingholme in the special development order on nuclear dumping; how many he has replied to before publishing the order; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. WaldegraveSeven letters from those known to be involved in the food industry. Replies to all outstanding correspondence will be sent as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many delegations and deputations he received on the special development order on nuclear dumping; how he evaluated their arguments; what changes he made to the NIREX proposals as a result; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. WaldegraveMy right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I have together or separately met a number of deputations from local authorities and other bodies. Representations made then and in correspondence were carefully considered and a number of changes made to the draft order.
§ Mr. Lyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, what is the total volume of radioactive nuclear waste, differentiating between low-level waste, intermediate-level waste and high-level waste arising from different sources, namely: reprocessing, power stations, research, medical and industrial sources up to the year 2030 showing the amount from each of the above sources and the extent to which any of the low-level waste could be categorised as very low-level waste.
§ Mrs. Rumbold[pursuant to her answer, 12 May 1986, c. 358]: The figures given were incorrect. The following corrected figures are for conditioned wastes likely to arise by 2,030, assuming moderate growth in nuclear power generation and in reprocessing.
78W
Source HGW ILW LLW Reactors (committed and proposed including decommissioning) — 53,000 cubic metres 278,000 cubic metres
Source HGW ILW LLW Reprocessing 8,300 cubic metres 109,000 cubic metres 840,000 cubic metres Research/Medical/Industrial — 35,000 cubic metres 75,000 cubic metres Total 8,300 cubic metres 197,000 cubic metres 1,193,000 cubic metres The LLW is assumed to be compacted.
The figure for heat-generating waste (HGW) relates to the form in which such wastes are currently stored: HGW will be solidified into glass blocks when the new plant is available and this will have the effect of reducing the volume to about one third.
It is not possible to estimate what proportion of LLW could be categorised as very low-level waste.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he received the letter of 4 April 1985 sent by Mr. R. A. Shearing of 43 Landsdowne Avenue, Grimsby, with regard to the proposed nuclear dump at Killingholme; if he has yet replied to this letter; and if he will make it his policy to allow Mr. Shearing time to reply to him before he brings forward the special development order;
(2) when he received the letter of 7 April 1985 from Mrs. V. Ingram of 116 Pelham Avenue, Grimsby, with regard to the proposed nuclear dump site at Killingholme; if he has yet replied to this letter; and if he will allow Mrs. Ingram time to reply to him before he brings forward his proposals;
(4) if he will make it his policy to reply to Councillor Doug Pitchett of 198 Broadway, Grimsby DN34 5QJ, about the South Killingholme potential nuclear waste disposal site in sufficient time for the recipient to reply before any special development order is laid; and if he will make a statement;
(5) if he will reply to Councillor John Colebrook of:56 Gloucester Avenue, Grimsby, South Humberside DN34 5BZ about the South Killingholme potential nuclear waste disposal site in sufficient time for the recipient to reply before the special development order is laid, and if he will make a statement.
§ Mrs. Rumbold[pursuant to the answer, 15 May 1986, c. 549]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 14 May in response to his letter covering that from Mrs. Ingram. Replies to outstanding letters from the hon. Member covering letters from his constituents will be sent as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of Slate for the Environment (1) whether he intends to collect evidence from the Anglian water authority on the four possible nuclear dump sites before a special development order is laid;
(2) what consultations he has had with the Anglian water authority about the drainage, water table, dampness and water flow problems of the land at Killingholme, South Humberside, selected by NIREX as a possible nuclear dump.
§ Mr. Waldegrave[pursuant to his answer, 16 May 1986, c. 549]: I consulted the authority over the terms of the special development order. Consultations with the authority on specific hydrogeological factors are initially a matter for NIREX.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites will be producing waste 79W which will be taken to the Government's proposed low-level nuclear waste dump once it is in operation; how many are accessible for rail transportation; how many would be sending waste by road; what preference he has expressed to NIREX for transportation; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Waldegrave[pursuant to his answer, 15 May 1986, c. 550]: There are some 2,000 premises in England and Wales where radioactive substances are produced. Many of these will probably make use of the proposed disposal facility. It is not possible to say at this stage how much waste will travel to the site by road or rail. My Department has not expressed any preference, but mode of transport will be taken into account when the proposals from UK NIREX Ltd are considered.
§ Mr. Lyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place a copy of research report number DOE/RW/85-124 referred to in the reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire of 12 May column 358 in the Library.
§ Mr. WaldegraveYes.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his estimate of the proportion by volume of low-level nuclear waste produced each year by reprocessing of (a) British nuclear waste and (b) imported nuclear waste and his estimate of the amount by volume of low-level waste when the THORP reprocessing plant is completed;
(2) what is the difference between the radiological risks of storing nuclear waste on nuclear power station sites and those for early disposal in nuclear dumps.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI shall answer these questions shortly.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the letters protesting at the inclusion of Killingholme in the special development order on nuclear dumping he replied to before publishing it.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI shall answer this question shortly.