Mr. Robert AinsworthTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has that the misuse of equipment, as referred to in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's reply to Greenpeace's complaint regarding a perceived breach of paragraph 2 of the Drigg authorisation, was the sole cause of the high-surface activity levels recorded by the Greenpeace investigators.
§ Mr. AtkinsHer Majesty's inspectorate of pollution sought the advice of the National Radiological Protection Board regarding the environmental monitoring carried out by Greenpeace and depicted in its video of the Drigg site. The NRPB advised that an item which fully complies with the requirements of the Drigg disposal authorisation could give rise to the results determined by Greenpeace. This is because the instrument used by Greenpeace was not appropriate for use in the mixed radiation fields associated with the low-level wastes disposed of at Drigg. It is possible that there was no surface contamination present at all on the items monitored, and that the spurious surface contamination really was due to radiation emissions from radioactive material contained within the disposed items.
HMIP thoroughly investigated Greenpeace's complaint and concluded that there had been no breach of the Drigg site authorisation. A reply to this effect was sent by HMIP to Greenpeace on 16 December 1994.
Mr. Robert AinsworthTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what attempt has been made to locate and monitor the package reported to him by Greenpeace as containing intermediate-level waste in its complaint regarding arrangements for the disposal of low-level waste at Drigg.
§ Mr. AtkinsGreenpeace entered Drigg illegally, in July 1994, but did not bring its complaint to the attention of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution until October 1994. In the intervening period, the item in question has been completely covered by material disposed of in the trench. Direct monitoring of the item would have been possible if Greenpeace had bothered to notify HMIP immediately of its concerns. An item, which from the Greenpeace video and report could have been mistaken for a glovebox that might have been thought to contain intermediate-level waste, has been identified from photographs provided by British Nuclear Fuels plc of the110W tipping face at about the same time that Greenpeace entered Drigg. The disposal records and history of the item indicate that the disposal was carried out in full compliance with the requirements of the Drigg authorisation.