Nuclear Energy Board resources and radiation monitoring
The Minister reported £383,000 for offices and a laboratory, £60,000 for equipment and five additional staff, and described the post-Chernobyl monitoring response. Reynolds challenged the delay before extra monitoring began; Spring said it started over the weekend after the interdepartmental committee was established and affirmed that the added resources would improve the Board’s capacity, including for health protection.
asked the Minister for Energy if any additional funds have been made available to the Nuclear Energy Board recently; if so, the amount; if increased staff numbers have been approved; if so, the number; and if he will give details of the national emergency plan to deal with serious radiation fallout in respect of health and environmental protection.
Comment on this
A sum of £383,000 has been approved for leasing of office facilities and the provision of a new laboratory for the Nuclear Energy Board. In addition £60,000 has been approved for equipment and provision is being made for five extra staff, as requested by the board.
The Deputy will be aware that an interdepartmental committee were established on 30 April 1986 in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. They made use of existing structures such as the Nuclear Energy Board, Civil Defence and the Meteorological Service to put into operation an immediate system of monitoring of levels of radioactivity in milk, vegetables and water. The results of this continuous monitoring enabled the board to advise the public that radioactivity in these foodstuffs and in the atmosphere were within acceptable levels. The committee also quickly established that there were adequate stocks of powdered milk and iodine available in case of an emergency, which fortunately did not arise. A system was put in train to notify the Nuclear Energy Board, in advance, of ship and plane arrivals from East European countries so that they and their cargoes could be monitored for radioactivity. Foodstuffs from seven East European countries were banned under an EC regulation. Monitoring of foodstuffs originating in other countries was also put in place. All these monitoring procedures will continue for so long as is necessary.
On the basis of this experience our preparations for coping with nuclear accidents are being stepped up and any further requirements of the Nuclear Energy Board will be examined. The interdepartmental committee are considering in particular what further measures might be necessary in the event of nuclear accidents with more serious consequences for this country.
Hopefully another serious nuclear accident can be avoided. That is why the Government have placed such emphasis on the need for an independent nuclear inspection force. The emphasis must be on the full and proper monitoring of nuclear installations and the prevention of nuclear accidents.
Comment on this
We have already dealt with the international inspectorate. He will not get it under the Euratom Treaty. I suggest he might have more success if he goes to the international atomic agency. On what date did the nuclear energy board swing into action and monitor the level of radioactivity in rain water and so on?
Comment on this
The interdepartmental committee was established on 30 April. The Nuclear Energy Board worked through the following weekend analysing air and rain water samples which had been taken by the Meteorological Office. The testing of milk samples commenced immediately and the first samples were available on Sunday morning.
Comment on this
Monitoring takes place on a continuing basis. The levels which were apparent from the normal monitoring——
Comment on this
It was considered there was no necessity for additional monitoring until the weekend.
Comment on this
That is not the way other countries treated this disaster. They did not wait for a week before they commenced monitoring. I accept there were constraints on the Nuclear Energy Board.
Comment on this
Is the Minister now satisfied that the additional resources and staff will enable the Nuclear Energy Board to do their job properly, as I am sure they would have liked to do on day one but were constrained due to lack of funds and other resources.
Comment on this
I am satisfied that the additional money, equipment and staff will be of enormous benefit to the board in ensuring we have adequate information and protection from any possible future incident.