§ Lord Graham of Edmontonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received the National Radiological Protection Board's report on the radiological significance of past dumpings of radioactive waste at Beauforts Dyke and elsewhere.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue)My honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has now received the results of the independent assessment which he asked the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to undertake, and he has arranged for copies of NRPB's report to be placed in the Library of the House.
The report concludes that all of the past dumpings which were identified during the searches of records would give rise to doses well within the International Commission on Radiological Protection's recommended dose limit for members of the public. Moreover, in all cases except one, the report states that the calculated doses were at a level considered trivial in radiological
114WA
UK imports of greaves; flours and meals of meat, offals. fish, crustaceans or molluscs unfit, for human consumption1 from Africa 1970–1985 (tonnes) as recorded in Official Overseas Trade Statistics Country 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Botswana 0 0 0 290 0 0 0 0 Egypt 0 0 0 0 20 18 0 0 Ghana 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ivory Coast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kenya 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Mauritania 0 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 Mauritius 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Morocco 0 0 0 0 0 0 798 0 Portuguese East Africa 0 0 472 0 0 0 0 0 South Africa 0 0 0 0 8,059 10,022 2,465 202 Republic of South Africa 73,560 39,535 19,619 25,634 0 0 0 0 South West Africa 0 0 0 0 14,797 13,972 322 0 South West Africa Territories 89,182 13,780 50,221 23,313 0 0 0 0 1Meant and bone meal are not specifically identified in the combined nomenclature. The classification used is that which approximates most closely with meat and bone meal. protection terms. Only in relation to the disposals in Liverpool Bay area were peak critical group doses estimated to have been above the "trivial" level, and even these were well within the recommended dose limit. The NRPB conclude that, since estimated doses from the dispersion of radionuclides in marine waters are not significant in radiological protection terms, there is no need for additional environmental monitoring in connection with the disposals.
The NRPB consider that the only eventuality which could give rise to a significant calculated dose is if one of the two anti-static devices dumped off the Isle of Arran in 1958 were to be washed ashore or trawled up and handled by a member of the public. They conclude that the likelihood of this situation occurring is extremely low but advise that it may nevertheless be prudent to ensure that trawlermen and organisations responsible for dealing with material washed up on beaches are made aware of the possibility and advised to seek expert assistance if there is reason to suspect that one of these sources has appeared. In the light of this, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are exploring with the NRPB how such advice can effectively be provided.