§ Mr. SheermanTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the cost in the latest year for which figures are available for education programmes designed to reduce the demand for drugs.
§ Mr. Alan HowarthIn 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available, local education authorities claimed grant on expenditure of £1.6 million under the LEA training grants scheme and £2.6 million under the relevant education support grant in relation to education about drug misuse.
Building Average airborne activity levels (per cent. ALI) 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 B205 3.0 2.4 3.2 1.6 3.0 2.7 3.4 B268 TDN 6.0 5.5 3.1 6.0 2.6 3.6 9.8 B268 MA Evap — 1.1 1.0 1.8 1.1 0.8 0.6 B30 Inlet 1.4 2.6 1.8 1.4 2.4 3.0 2.9 B30 Decanner 9.0 8.3 5.7 6.2 4.8 7.0 12.4
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursTo ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether readings as registered on personal air samplers worn by British Nuclear Fuels plc. employees working on B/205, B/268 and B/30 at Sellafield have ever failed to match readings as registered on non-battery electrically powered air sampling equipment fitted to the same buildings.
§ Mr. BaldryContinuously operating air samplers at fixed locations give an average of the aerial radioactivity in the plant and would activate if the levels in the plant rise significantly. Personal air samplers worn by individual employees give a recording of the localised aerial contamination associated with different jobs. The annual exposure recorded by personal air samplers substantially exceeds that measured by installed samplers because individual working practices can generate localised airborne radioactivity which is not expected to be fully recorded by the air sampling equipment.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursTo ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, in every case that the alarm monitors in B/205, B/268 and B/30 at Sellafield have been triggered, all personnel have been ordered to leave the area concerned pending suitable clearance by British Nuclear Fuels plc's. health physics department in each year since 1986.
§ Mr. BaldryShould an individual air sampler alarm, apparently due to radiation, then employees working nearby are expected to move to an adjacent monitored area whilst the reason for the alarm is investigated by a suitably protected person. Should a number of local air samplers alarm, employees are expected to move out of that part of the plant to a mustering point, whilst other employees, suitably protected, investigate the problem. One case of non-compliance occurred in 1986 when the employee sent to investigate an alarm carried, but did not wear, the respiratory protection provided, and received an exposure in excess of the annual limit of intake. Details of