§ Mr. DalyellTo ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the report of the Safeguards Office study of the nuclear materials accountancy aspects of the UKAEA report, Dounreay Shaft Inventory will be made public. [68538]
§ Mr. BattleThe Government have today published in full the Safeguards Office review of the nuclear materials accountancy aspects of UKAEA's Dounreay Shaft Inventory report.
The main findings of the review are as follows. No evidence was found to support suggestions that have been made following the publication of the UKAEA's Dounreay Shaft Inventory (DSI) report that high enriched uranium has been lost from Dounreay, i.e. that it has been stolen, diverted for military purposes or somehow removed from the site using an unidentified route.
The false impression given by the DSI report that there had been a loss of 170kg U-235 over the period 1 April 1965 to 30 September 1968 was the result of a misinterpretation of 30-year old UKAEA records, arising from a misunderstanding of the nuclear materials accountancy terminology in use at that time.
If the nuclear material inventories over this period had been taken according to modern nuclear materials accountancy practices, the material unaccounted for (MUF) would have been significantly less than 86 kg U-235. Even a MUF of 86kg U-235, at less than 1 per cent. of the amount of material processed at Dounreay over the period, would be considered acceptable against present day international standards of nuclear materials accountancy.
Review of the DSI report by nuclear materials accountancy specialists would have provided explanations for and clarifications of information contained in early UKAEA nuclear materials accountancy reports, and thus could have helped avoid the understandable concerns raised by the report as published.
Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.