§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distribution of total radiation exposure for Clyde submarine base workers in the ranges(a) 0 to 5 mSv, (b) 5 to 10 mSv, (c) 10 to 15 mSv, (d) 15 to 20 mSv, (e) 20 to 25 mSv, (f) 25 to 30 mSv, (g) 30 to 35 mSv, (h) 35 to 40 mSv, (i) 40 to 45 mSv, (j) 45 to 50 mSv, (k) greater than 50 mSv, (l) greater than 100 mSv,(m) greater than 200 mSv, (n) greater than 300 mSv, (o) greater than 400 mSv, (p) greater than 500 mSv, (q) greater than 600 mSv, (r) greater than 700 mSv, and (s) greater than 750 mSv, in numbers and in terms of percentage of the overall work force.
§ Mr. NeubertA breakdown of cumulative radiation exposures for workers currently registered in DRP's record-keeping system as employed at Clyde submarine base is as follows:
Cumulative radiation exposures—Clyde submarine base Dose range (mSv) Number of persons Percentage of overall workforce 0 – 5 274 7.33 5 – 10 61 1.63 10 – 15 25 0.67 15 – 20 20 0.54 20 –25 8 0.21 25 –30 13 0.35 30 –35 14 0.37 35 –40 9 0.24 40 . 45 2 0.05 45 – 50 5 0.13 Greater than 50 (50 – 100) 28 0.75 100 (100 – 200) 12 0.32 200 (200 – 300) 1 0.03 300 (300 – 400) 0 0.00 400 (400 – 500) 0 0.00 500 (500 – 600) 0 0.00 600 (600 – 700) 0 0.00 700 (700 – 750) 0 0.00 750 0 0.00
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distribution of total radiation exposure for Aldermaston workers in the ranges(a) 0 to 5 mSv, (b) 5 to 10 mSv, (c) 10 to 15 mSv, (d) 15 to 20 mSv, (e) 20 to 25 mSv, (f) 25 to 30 mSv, (g) 30 to 35 mSv, (h) 35 to 40 mSv, (i) 40 to 45 mSv, (j) 45 to 50 mSv, (k) greater than 50 msv, (1) greater than 100 mSv, (m) greater than 200 mSv, (n) greater than 300 mSv, (o) greater than 400 mSv, (p) greater than 500 mSv, (q) greater than 600 mSv, (r) greater than 700 mSv, and (s) greater than 750 mSv in numbers and in terms of percentage of the overall work force.
§ Mr. NeubertData on the lifetime aggregate whole-body external radiation exposure of workers employed by AWE since it commenced operations are presented in the table. The data are for all AWE sites, including Aldermaston, and represent the situation as at the end of 1989. In the interests of national security, it is inappropriate to provide the figures in terms of percentage of the overall work force or to provide the number of workers in the 0–10 millisievert category. I can confirm, however, that the majority of workers are in this category. A more detailed breakdown could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
574W
Millisieverts Number of Staff 10–15 1,095 15–20 753 20–30 740 30.50 576 Greater than 50 528 Greater than 100 1166 Greater than 200 149 Greater than 500 11 Greater than 750 11 1 One case resulted from a single high result of 1600 mSv in 1979 from a film dosimeter which, after investigation, was shown to have been exposed while not being worn. Without this false exposure, the individual would have appeared only in the greater than 50 category.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distribution of total radiation exposure for Devonport dockyard workers in the ranges:(a) 0 to 5mSv, (b) 5 to 10mSv, (c) 10 to 15mSv, (d) 15 to 20mSv, (e) 20 to 25mSv, (f) 25 to 30mSv, (g) 30 to 35mSv, (h) 35 to 40mSv, (i) 40 to 45mSv, (j) 45 to 50mSv, (k) greater than 50mSv, (l) greater than 100mSv, (m) greater than 200mSv, (n) greater than 300mSv, (o) greater than 400mSv, (p) greater than 500mSv, (q) greater than 600mSv, (r) greater than 700mSv and (s) greater than 750mSv in numbers and in terms of percentage of the overall work force.
§ Mr. NeubertThe information requested is a matter for the contractor, Devonport Management Ltd, which assumed responsibility for the health and safety of persons employed within the nuclear licensed site at Devonport on 5 April 1987.