Search Results

1-15 of 15 results for subject:"HMS Renown"

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he has reached a decision on the proposals to dismantle HMS Renown; and if he will make a statement. - Inc ref to 11 May 2000, 349 c447-8W.

Asked by

Phil Sawford (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

26 November 2001

For answer on

27 November 2001

Answered on

27 November 2001

Phil Sawford: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has reached a decision on the proposals to dismantle HMS Renown; and if he will make a statement. [18933] Dr. Moonie: In my answer on 11 May 2000, Official Report, column 447W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), I announced that we would be investigating the options for the land storage of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. I also informed the House that we had separately received an unsolicited commercial proposal from Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd. (BRDL), the owners of Rosyth Royal Dockyard, to dismantle the reactor compartment of the decommissioned nuclear-powered submarine, HMS Renown, and store the components. At that time we had agreed that planning and feasibility work could proceed, but I assured the House that the proposals would not be implemented until Ministers and the relevant regulatory authorities were entirely satisfied and that I would make a further statement. Since May 2000, much valuable work has been undertaken by BRDL to demonstrate the feasibility of their proposals. While I am satisfied on the matter of feasibility, it is clear that the necessary regulatory approvals to commence dismantling Renown will not be in place until next year. Even if the approvals are granted, and that is a matter for the independent regulators, it would be many months before the work to dismantle Renown could be completed. We have already begun the process of inviting industry proposals on the best solution for the land storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines generally and it would therefore be too late for the knowledge gained from dismantling Renown to inform this process. As a result, I have decided that there would be no advantage in proceeding with the dismantling of Renown ahead of the other decommissioned submarines stored at Devonport and Rosyth. Renown will continue to be stored afloat at Rosyth until such time as the final decisions on land storage are implemented. These decisions are unlikely to be taken for some two to three years and will be subject to full and open consultation.

Date

27 November 2001

Reference

18933; 375 c759W

House

House of Commons

Symons of Vernham Dean, Baroness

Lords statement on what progress has been made on the study into options for the storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines; and whether they will make a statement. [HL 2399].

Asked by

Lord Hughes of Woodside (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

11 May 2000

Reference

HL 2399; 612 c228-9WA

House

House of Lords

Ministry of Defence

Statement on what progress has been made on the study into options for the storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines. (Report in Library Dep No 00/829).

Asked by

Rachel Squire (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

10 May 2000

For answer on

11 May 2000

Answered on

11 May 2000

Ms Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the study into options for the storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines; and if he will make a statement. [122119] Dr. Moonie: My predecessor announced in March 1998 that we would undertake a study into options for the storage of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. The initial phase of our study has been completed. We have concluded that while afloat storage would remain a safe option, if suitable alternative venues could be identified, land storage offers the best overall solution in the long term. Further work will now be undertaken to determine which land storage option should be adopted. I expect this further work to take up to three years to complete. The purpose of the next phase will be to determine which land storage solution should be adopted. This work will be taken forward in conjunction with industry, who will be invited to submit their proposals, with a view to entering into a Public/Private arrangement. As part of the process, we will further develop one land storage option, the removal and storage of the intact reactor compartment and the recycling of the remainder of the submarine, as a basis for comparison with industry proposals. We have not identified specific land store sites, but would expect these to emerge from the proposals we receive from industry. No decision will be taken on the most suitable storage option, or on a site, until we have completed the next phase of the study, which will include full and open consultation. As part of this process, environmental impact assessments will be undertaken for each storage option taken forward. We are providing oral briefings to interested parties and the media, and material is also available on the MOD website. In addition, we are inviting written comments as a means of shaping and informing our further work and plan to consult widely during the next phase of the study. Separately, and in parallel, we have received an unsolicited commercial proposal from Babcock Rosyth Defence Limited, the owners of Rosyth Royal Dockyard, to dismantle the reactor compartment of one decommissioned nuclear submarine, HMS Renown, and store the components. This would be an alternative to the traditional nuclear decommissioning work planned to start at Rosyth later this year and would not lead to any overall increase in the radioactive waste already held there. The intermediate level waste from Renown would be held initially in the purpose built facility at Rosyth, but BRDL have been asked to make proposals for its eventual removal. The Babcock proposals will be taken forward in two stages and I have agreed that the first, which will involve feasibility and planning work only, may proceed. There will be no question of moving to the second, implementation, stage of the proposal until and unless we and the relevant regulatory authorities are entirely satisfied. In these circumstances I will make a further announcement. During this second stage, we will work with Babcock to produce an environmental impact assessment, which will involve public consultation. In addition, the company will have to satisfy the nuclear safety and environmental requirements of the independent regulators, including the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency before the dismantling work can begin. The company will be briefing local interest groups and the media tomorrow. In all of the above, safety remains of paramount importance and we will work to the same standards that apply to civil nuclear industry.

Date

11 May 2000

Reference

122119; 349 c447-8W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

What is the current cost per annum of maintaining HMS `Renown'; and to comment on her future; and where HMS Renown is currently stationed. - Includes figure.

Asked by

Lord Clark of Windermere (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 November 1995

Reference

267 c258W;267 c256W; 2057;2058

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

What are the reasons for HMS `Renown' being laid up at CSB Faslane since June 1994.

Asked by

Llew Smith (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 April 1995

Reference

258 c224W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

What is his latest estimate of the decommissioning date for (a) HMS `Repulse' and (b) HMS `Renown'.

Asked by

Llew Smith (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 April 1995

Reference

258 c224W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

What was the cost of the recent refit of HMS `Renown' at the time the contract was placed; what the final cost was on completion; and what are the reasons for the difference. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

27 January 1993

Reference

217 c757W;217 c751-2W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

What was the cost of the recent refit of HMS `Renown'. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Harry Cohen (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

17 December 1992

Reference

216 c363W;216 c364W

House

House of Commons

Oral answer to question

Answered by

Lord King of Bridgwater (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

17 December 1991

Reference

201 c132

House

House of Commons

Oral question

1st supplementary on safety.

Asked by

Bob Cryer (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Oral questions - 1st Supplementary

Status

Answered

Date

17 December 1991

Reference

201 c132

House

House of Commons

Oral question

To comment on cost of refitting Polaris submarines in current financial year. - Inc figure. -

Asked by

Bob Cryer (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Oral questions - Lead

Status

Answered

Date

17 December 1991

Reference

201 c132

House

House of Commons

Oral answer to question

Answered by

Lord King of Bridgwater (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Oral answers to questions

Date

17 December 1991

Reference

201 c132

House

House of Commons

Written question

When HMS Renown is scheduled to complete its current refit. - It is not the practice to publish details of nuclear submarine refits.

Asked by

Roland Boyes (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

14 October 1991

Reference

196 c62W

House

House of Commons

Written question

If it is intended to decommission HMS Renown in the next 12 months. - No.

Asked by

Andrew Bennett (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 March 1991

Reference

187 c719W;187 c715W

House

House of Commons

Written question

If he will institute an inquiry into the levels of radiation exposure received by civilian refit workers in the reactor room of HMS `Renown' in the early 1970s.

Asked by

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

29 October 1990

Reference

178 c413W;178 c411W

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher