Environment Agency extends Devonport Consultation. The application by Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited to dispose of radioactive wastes from Devonport Royal Dockyard Plymouth. Response by South and West Devon and Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authorities

In May 2000 Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited (DML) applied to the Environment Agency (EA) to vary its authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste at Devonport in order to be able to refit a new class of submarine (Vanguard). The new work would result in an increase in the discharge of radioactive waste and a change in the proportions and types of nuclides produced. The Health Authorities have assessed the potential health effects using the evidence presented and the views of statutory agencies. The draft EA authorisation takes account of potential exposure to people and the environment. At the limits proposed by DML and the EA the maximum exposure to individuals is calculated to be less than 9 microseiverts (0.009 milliSv) per year which is about 1% of the dose limit set in a year for members of the public and represents less than 0.2% increase over the average annual radiation dose to an individual in Devon and Cornwall. The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) estimates that the lifetime risk of fatal cancer to infants receiving a dose of 10 microSv (0.01 milliSv) for a year (the dose to those thought to be most exposed dose for the proposed discharge is 9 microSv), is about 1 in a million. This risk is lower in older children and adults. The report also includes information about leukaemias in Plymouth and South East Cornwall in response to concerns raised during the consultation process. The evidence suggests that the discharge of radioactive waste during the last 25 years has not increased the incidence of leukaemia in Plymouth or Caradon. In particular death rates from leukaemia are not higher in people living close to the Dockyard than elsewhere in the locality. The calculated doses associated with the discharge are low. There is no evidence on which to oppose the proposed authorisation on the grounds of health risk to the local population. In view of the level of risk attached to the discharge, no recommendation is made about health surveillance or monitoring. We consider that surveillance around nuclear sites is a matter for national consideration. (author)