Liability for Historic Contamination - Information Management

It is clear that the MOD is doing all it can to deny all liability for sites that it has sold off or returned to owners prior to the beginning of the Land Quality Assessment (LQA) programme that began in the late 1980s.

The prime example among hundreds of sites is Dalgety Bay where extensive radioactive contamination has been found on the beach and foreshore. This was due in all probability to work involving radium used to illuminate dials etc on aircraft.

Another site which has many of the same indicators for radium contamination as Dalgety Bay is Wig Bay in south west Scotland. At RAF Pulham the presence radium contamination has been confirmed by the local council. 

In 2000 the Governments independent advisory committee on the management of radioactive waste gave advice to MOD ministers on contaminated land which included the need to preserve historic information and enabling access to that information.

"Discussion and findings

6.1 It is clear that many MoD sites will have been contaminated with radioactivity as a result of past defence activities. RWMAC therefore welcomes the LQA programme that has been set up by MoD to identify contamination, including that arising from radioactivity, within the current defence estate.

6.2 However, the search for radioactively contaminated sites as part of this programme has been substantially hampered by the lack of historical records. While the close-knit military community seems to exhibit a good "folk-memory" of likely sources of contamination, it is unlikely that this can compensate for the lack of written records. Even on the sites where radioactive contamination is known to have occurred, there is a need to identify precisely where it is located across what is usually an extensive area.

6.3 The current LQA programme focuses on the current defence estate, notably the sites which MoD wishes to divest. However, there have been disposals of substantial numbers of sites in the past of which MoD has stated it has no comprehensive record. In RWMAC's view, it is nearly inevitable that some of this former MoD land will have been contaminated by luminising activities and/or luminised materials. None of the key individuals spoken to during the course of RWMAC's work questioned this view.

6.4 The most likely form of contamination that might have existed on such sites is buried radium-226 either as materials used to produce luminising paint or the paint itself, or products that have been painted. The latter could have been burned before burial. MoD has stated to RWMAC that these disposal practices are unlikely to have caused a wider problem because radium is insoluble and therefore essentially immobile. However, when questioned by RWMAC, the Ministry had relatively little evidence (other than a few early laboratory solubility tests) to substantiate this view. RWMAC believes that significantly more work is needed before MoD's assertion that buried radium is immobile in all soil and groundwater conditions can be reliably proven.

6.5 RWMAC was not made aware of any MoD exercise to identify land disposed of before the LQA system was introduced. Because of the possibility of contamination on at least some of these sites, RWMAC believes that MoD should consider the feasibility of compiling a list of historical disposals, with consideration being given to earmarking those with the highest probability of radioactive contamination."

In the context of alienated, sites It clear that the advice on the preservation of records and the need to retain knowledge of subject matter experts and those with personal experience at sites has been ignored. In fact it appears there has been postive action taken to place key information in the national archive.  This effectively removes the information from the FOI regime since MOD can say they no longer hold the information.  Regarding information the MOD may still hold either in office or archived file lists are needed to access this information but it is clear from the MOD response to a FOI  

File lists - key to accessing corporate memory

However, we have to advise you that we will not be able to answer your request without  exceeding the appropriate limit. This is because to the only official record of registered files  is the MOD Form 262 of which there is one form for each file and part of a file opened.  There are many thousands of MOD Form 262s which make up the official file record for D Def H&S and D SEF Pol and to locate, retrieve, and extract information in scope of your request would involve some 7 man days of effort"

The answer implies that there are significant difficulties in locating files in order to inform policy and questions about issues, some only a few years old.  D Sef pol, D Def H&S and DS&C  were in turn all Directorates of MOD Head Office concerned with health, safety and the environment.  The difficulty in accessing  files means that it is very difficult to look back and learn from  previous accidents and polluting events.  So, such unfortunate incidents are likely to reoccur

MOD as modern forward looking organisation has moved away from paper based document system to an electronic documents records management system (EDRM)

This report explains the advantages of the EDRM system

"Easy location and retrieval of information The ability to find information from document libraries, as well as many other portals and intranets, has fundamentally changed the way the MoD works

Questions answered The infrastructure facilitated the development of a 'Freedom of Information' toolkit, which enables the MoD to fulfill its commitments to Central Government and the public in this area.

The new system enables the MOD to meet UK Government requirements for compliance and records management."

From difficulties the MOD has in providing answers to FOIs it appears the EDRM does not include references to old paper files held in archive and is essentially based around information to hand at the date the EDRM was implemented.

So far as historic information is concerned it appears that the MOD suffered a "corporate lobotomy" .

It is also now clear that the expensive subject matter experts who held  significant parts of the corporate memory in their heads have now left the MOD through retirement or staff cuts.

The report Information Management Assessment Ministry of Defence  March 2009 stated that

"Information is recognised as the key asset for running the business of The Ministry 
of Defence and is used to support effective data and information sharing and knowledge creation".

The examples high-lighted above and else where in this blog suggest there are significant failures in meeting recommendations in the report  Information Management Assessment Ministry of Defence  March 2009

The potential liability

This report provides an excellent overview of the scale of the problem for both the existing and alienated estate :-

Land Contamination: Technical Guidance on Special Sites: MoD Land 
R&D Technical Report P5-042/TR/01  Dr G Bulloch, J E Steeds, K Green, M G Sainsbury, J S Brockwell, N J Slade Research Contractor:  WS Atkins Consultants Limited In association with: BAE SYSTEMS Environmental Services.

Conclusion

• The MOD liabilities for the alienated estate may run  to hundreds of millions pounds of taxpayers money.
• MOD has failed to preserve records that would help identify these liabilities.
• There may have been and may continue to be  a conscious policy within the MOD of  doing everything possible to reject claims relating to the alienated estate and positively obstruct such claims by neglecting to preserve evidence of polluting processes etc; despite advice to preserve such information.
• The MOD policy is to challenge independent assessments of the risks from pollutants and/or  MODs' liability, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
• Communities and the environment continue to suffer blight because of the MODs', failure to take responsibility for the legacy of past activities and the consequent pollution the MOD caused.
• MOD is behaving like an ostrich and just hoping the issue will go away

Wig Bay another Dalgety Bay?

SEPA has identified the Ministry of Defence as the "appropriate person" responsible for the radioactive contamination of  the beach and foreshore at Dalgety Bay in Fife.

However it is clear from press reports that the MOD still continues to resist admitting any degree of liability by challenging SEPAs'  competence and evidence

"The MoD said it would consider the report findings in detail and respond to SEPA in due course. However, it said it had concerns over the "adequacy and validity" of both SEPA's risk assessment and its approach to the Appropriate Persons Report. A spokesman said: "We will seek an early meeting with SEPA at senior official level to raise these concerns and discuss the way forward."  Full report

I feel that MOD in denying liability, that this has resulted in a long drawn out expensive process at the end of which the MOD will be found to be liable and suffer significant reputational damage.

I suspect Defence Estates fear that admitting liability in the case of Dalgety Bay would  set a precedent for the hundreds of other sites where there is the potential for radium and other contamination; the liability running into many millions of pounds.

An example of similar coastal site in Scotland site potentially contaminated with Radium, is the former seaplane base at Wig Bay Loch Ryan. 

The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland  shows that the former seaplane base at Wig Bay was used  to "break up aircraft" which in all probability contained significant quantities of radium luminised instruments etc.

Google earth shows that some of the old hard standing is now used as a car park complete with interpretation boards and open access to the beach and foreshore.

In response to a FOI request the MOD said:-
"You requested information about what subsequently happened to the radium dials that were in the flying boats which were scrapped and dismantled at Wig Bay in Loch Ryan SW Scotland.

A search of the MOD archives has not identified any material on this subject. Any documentation that has survived will be held by the National Archives at Kew."

reference 1

Image showing numerous aircraft at Wig Bay

View of the site today from the main road showing car park etc

RAF Pulham  where the  MOD held no records about radium contamination,  but where radium contamination has been confirmed.  The MOD has rejected responsibility in this case by saying

"I am advised that former sites such as this fall within the statutory responsibility of the Local authority to inspect the land in its area and identify any contaminated land. It is therefore suggested that any evidence of contamination you have should be brought to the attention of the Local Authority “


This effectively shuffles off any responsibility to identify contaminated land that the MOD once owned or controlled to the Local Authorities.

  

Local Authorities are very unlikely to hold any information about these sites and therefore are unlikely to have the means to identify whether or not such land is contaminated. 

RAF Kinloss provides yet another example of historic radium contamination and the need to ensure records are kept

Reference 1

"The Military Airfields of Britain, Scotland and Northern Island". Ken Delve, Crowood Press Ltd 2010, page 298 Wig Bay Stranraer
ISBN 978-1-84797-027-5

Ariel View

Overlay showing taxiways etc

Contamination of fish catches in the Irish sea by Depleted Uranium Penetrators

Information  has  been released by the MOD in response to a FOI request asking

"Could you please provide me with Information including reports etc
about the object recovered by fishermen mentioned at para 3, D of
the DUFERC minutes dated 19/10 1999"

In response to this,  the MOD directed me to a reply they made to a similar request

Recovered DU penetrator

The information the MOD provided only relates to the physical characteristics of the recovered round. Of particular note  is the reference made to "black and friable DU oxide" indicating  a significant risk of loose DU contamination.

This DU penetrator was one of over 6000 lying on the seabed of the Irish Sea

Extract from Hansard  HC Deb 07 February 2001 vol 362 cc1038-47

"Some 6,907 shells have been fired into the Solway, and, even allowing for misfires and malfunctions, more than 6,000 are presumably now lying in the Solway. Many of us instinctively object to the Solway being used as a radioactive munitions dumping ground by the MOD."

The MOD have not provided any information about the potential doses and intakes of DU to the fishermen who recovered the round or any information about the extent to which the fish etc caught alongside the round were contaminated with DU or whether or not the catch was sold for human consumption.

The recovery of this DU penetrator begs the question how many other similar situations may have occurred, but where the presence of a DU penetrator in the catch was not recognised or reported.

The MOD in not providing information about dose estimates from the recovered DU penetrator seem to have been negligent in their duty of care to the fishermen who recovered the DU penetrator and the public who may have consumed the fish etc caught alongside the DU penetrator. 

Chemical weapon legacy - Cover-up ??

Defence activities since the first world war have left a legacy of land contaminated with chemical weapons.  This extract from DIOlogue the house magazine of the Defence  Infrastructure Organisation Issue 2 October 2011. Some four years ago, the MOD set up Project Cleansweep to confirm that there was no risk to people or the environment from the UK’s historic programme for manufacturing, storing, handling or disposing of chemical warfare agents (CWAs).

Extract from 2nd issue of the DIOlogue newsletter published October 2011

The article mentioned that the project Cleansweep report was due to be published in the Autumn of 2011. A FOI request made in  2012 asking for the report.


FOI Request 18 September 2012

Dear Ministry of Defence,

In the 2nnd issue of the DIOlogue newsletter published October 2011 MOD regarding project "Cleansweep" said

"A comprehensive Project Completion report is due for publication this autumn, with both the Health Protection Agency and Environment Agency supportive of its findings. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons as well as being sent to MPs in whose constituencies these sites are located, local authorities and environment agencies. “Cleansweep has been a resounding success, both technically and in terms of partnership working,”

Could you please provide me with the following information

1: A copy of the "Cleansweep" report referred to the DIOlogue newsletter

if the report has not yet been published

2: when will the report will be published

3: information about the delay in publication

16 October 2012 MOD Replied

"You asked for a copy of the Project Cleansweep Completion Report or if the report has not yet been published details of when it will be and information on the delay in publication.
I can confirm that the Report has not yet been published, as two additional ground water monitoring reports on sites, that are included in the Cleansweep Completion Report are still in the process of being produced. While I am unable to say exactly when the rpeort Completion report will be published, I would be happy to provide you with a hard copy when it is,"

It is now 2013 and  as far as I am aware the Project Completion report has yet to be published..  
When asked through a FOI about specific sites and the potential for chemical contamination, the MOD are using the delay in publishing the Project Cleansweep report as an excuse for not providing information about the sites detailed in the FOI request. The also feel that it is not in the public interest to publish information about these sites.

It is notable that the Environmental Information Regulations (2004) require the proactive publication of environmental information

Dissemination of environmental information the legal duty

   4.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), a public authority shall in respect of environmental information that it holds— 

(a)progressively make the information available to the public by electronic means which are easily accessible; and

(b)take reasonable steps to organize the information relevant to its functions with a view to the active and systematic dissemination to the public of the information.

   (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) the use of electronic means to make information available or to organize information shall not be required in relation to information collected before 1st January 2005 in non-electronic form. 

FOI request for Information: Chemical Weapon Contamination 

Thank you for your request of 27 May 2012, this was passed to the Defence Infrastructure 
Organisation (DIO) – the Ministry of Defence (MOD) organisation with responsibility for the 
defence estate – and has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). 

You requested (verbatim) the following information:- 

a: Land quality assessments 
b: CW Clearance certificates 
c: Results of environmental surveys 
d: whether or not the site is owned by the MOD 
e: any other information about chemical weapon contamination at these sites; 

at the following sites :- 

 1 (FFD) Little Heath Suffolk Under the 
control of 94 Maintenance Unit 

FFD 2 Melchbourne/Riseley Bedfordshire American FFD - Station 572 

FFD 3 Norton Disney Lincolnshire Under the control of 93 
Maintenance Unit 

FFD 4 Lords Bridge Cambridgeshire Under the control of 95 
Maintenance Unit 

FFD 5 Escrick Yorkshire Under the control of 80 Sub Maintenance 
Unit 

RAF Macmerry located about 9 miles east of Edinburgh. In the past, 
the airfield may have been referred to as Tranent, or Penston 

While I can confirm that the MOD holds information within the scope of your enquiry, it is likely that some or all of it falls within the scope of a qualified exemption of the FOI Act. The relevant exemption is Section 22 (Information Intended for Future Publication) which provides that information is exempt from disclosure if the public authority holding it or another person intends to publish it at some future date, whether determined or not, and in all the circumstances it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to publication. 

The exemption is subject to the balance of the public interest. By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to consider the balance of the public interest, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances. The MOD has not yet reached a decision and I will not be able to fully respond to your request within 20 working days because of the need to carefully consider the issues involved. Our decision will be made as soon as possible and I will inform you immediately thereafter.

Conclusion

MOD has failed to provide the information on the specific sites, failed to publish the project cleansweep report and failed to  disseminate environmental information as required by the Environmental Information Regulations (2004).  The MOD is using its failure to publish the Cleansweep report as a reason to withhold information

Are the MOD afraid of publishing the information because there are significant problems with chemical weapon contamination which they wish to remain hidden??