Dounreay (Hansard, 31 March 1998)

§ Mr. Battle

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's recommendation to me that the radioactive waste in the Dounreay Intermediate Level Waste Shaft and in the Wet Silo should be retrieved for treatment and storage has been accepted by the Government.

It is now clear that the Shaft does not provide standards of waste disposal that are acceptable today and that retrieval is the best practicable environmental option. It has the support of the relevant regulators, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and of the Government's advisory bodies, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Special interest groups have also shown support of the retrieval option.

This decision has been taken following detailed engineering studies completed recently by the UKAEA, who operate the Dounreay site, which have shown that it is now technically feasible to recover waste from the Shaft in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner.

I have also accepted the UKAEA's recommendation that it is now time to plan for the removal and treatment of wastes stored in the Wet Silo.

Retrieval and treatment will provide a long term solution to the problem of what to do with the waste placed in the Shaft and Wet Silo over the last four decades which has caused such concern to the public.

The Government believe that nothing is more important than safety in the management of nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste. We are fully committed to caring for the environment and to taking action to deal with the difficult legacies from the past.

I expect that the difficult task of retrieving this waste will be tackled effectively over the coming years and will demonstrate that the UK is taking a world lead when dealing with nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management challenges.

478W

Naturally, in the early stages of such a large and complex project, there are significant uncertainties about the costs. The most recent estimates presented to me by the UKAEA suggest that total indicative costs may lie in the range £215-£355 million. These costs, which are already budgeted for, will be incurred over approximately the next 25 years and will be met from public funds. This includes the first stage of the work which will be for the UKAEA to develop its plans by completing hydrogeological and engineering studies aimed at minimising technical risk and refining predicted costs. They expect expenditure on this work will amount to about £4.5 million over the next five years. At each stage of the project the UKAEA's detailed plans will require approval from the NII and SEPA.