The MOD needs to accept liability for the contamination at Dalgety Bay so that the contamination can properly identified, managed and dealt with; claims by those who suffered blight etc can be addressed. The MOD needs to implement the principles of environmental justice in its policies and decision making.
MODs reluctance to accept liability may be influenced by the precedent that might be set for the hundreds of other contaminated sites the MOD sold off since WW2, such as RAF Pulham in Norfolk
Dunfermline Press reports :-
GORDON BROWN has asked the head of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) to make an early decision on who is responsible for the radiation leaks at Dalgety Bay. He said this was now essential if the remedial action plan to clean up the Bay area was to go ahead and be funded. It was time, he said, to name who was guilty for the leaks so further delays in cleaning up could be avoided.
He has written to SEPA after a letter to Dalgety Bay Community Council from the Ministry of Defence. In it the Ministry says it cannot agree to fund the clean-up until SEPA makes a decision as to who is responsible for the damage at the Bay's foreshore.
In his letter Mr Brown says the delays have to be brought to an end and he wants clean-up work to begin next May. Mr Brown, who has already met the Defence Secretary and held a Parliamentary debate on the issues, told SEPA, "It is clear that we will not make progress on the remediation plan until a decision is made about responsibility for the contamination and in that context I am writing to ask when you will make a determination on this issue.
"As we understand it there has yet to be conclusive evidence suggesting that other parties than the Ministry of Defence may be responsible for the dumping of radiation materials. "The MOD say they will only fund the clean-up if they are held to be liable by you and I hope you can
tell me when we can come to a conclusion on this matter.
"The people of Dalgety Bay have been very patient. We cannot continue with the prevarication and passing of the buck on who is responsible.
"A decision should be made as quickly as possible to protect the May 2013 timetable for the start of the clean-up."
My personal view has always been; that the evidence proves that the MOD was the probable source of the radium contamination and that by denying liability MOD has and continues to waste large amounts taxpayers payers money over the period of 20 or more years since the contamination was discovered.
It is also very convenient that the papers relating to the sale of Dalgety Bay which may have provided key evidence about liability cannot be found.
"Dalgety Bay the MOD is unable to locate records about the sale of radioactively contaminated land and the local Community Council appeals to the public for their help."
Its notable that the MOD is looking find a sites to break apart the decommissioned nuclear
submarines including Roysth a few miles west of Dalgety Bay
NIS report
"MoD has published a Request for Information in the Defence Contracts Bulletin and the Official Journal of the European Union seeking responses from private owners of nuclear licensed sites in the UK that may, subject to a comprehensive and publicly transparent site selection process, be able to meet its intermediate level waste storage requirements.
Babcock Marine, owners of the Rosyth and Devonport dockyards which are being considered as candidate sites for dismantling of the redundant submarines"
In view of the way in which the MOD has handled the contamination of the beach and foreshore at Dalgety Bay, it will be interesting to see to what extent there is public and political support in
Scotland for the dismantling work to take place at Rosyth.
From an ethical point of view the choice of Rosyth could be seen the MOD taking advantage of an economically disadvantaged community by holding out the chance of some short term work in exchange for taking on the legacy of the nuclear submarine programme. Dalgety Bay provides an example of the consequences of a legacy left by past defence activities.
RNAS/RAF Pulham provides a typical example of a site potentially contaminated with Radium
The Government recently introduced a new regime for the management of contaminated land to protect both man and the environment. Recent FOIs have been asked, to try to establish the extent of the hazards and risk arsing from historic contamination due to use of radium as a luminising agent by the Ministry of Defence. This issue was also subject to a detailed review by the Governments Radioactive Waste management Advisory committee (RWMAC).
The recent concerns about this legacy of radium contamination and the potential risk to the public and environment has been highlighted by the discovery that the beach at Dalgety Bay is far more extensively contaminated than previously thought and the MODs extreme reluctance to admit liability. The MOD has also released a list of some of the sites where radium contamination is an issue.
What has become clear that MOD has little if any records about radium contamination for those parts of the defence estate disposed of between the end of the Second World War and the 1980s. What records that do exist are mainly clearance certificates which were concerned about unexploded ordnance and explosives and not with other contaminates such as Radium, heavy metals, asbestos, chemical weaopns or organic solvents.
In response to an FOI it is clear With introduction of the contaminated land regime that the MOD policy is :-
“The site was despised of in the early 1960s and predates the MOD Land Quality Assessment programme. The MOD there only holds the enclosed 1969 Clearance Certificate that might be relevant to your request.
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.
It is clear that with the need to find cost savings MOD has lost the capability to assist local authorities in identifying contaminated defence land. MOD may have transferred information that would have helped to the National Archive or the information may have been lost or destroyed.
I asked the Local Authority “Could you please provide me with information about the nature and extent of radium contamination at RNAS/RAF Pulham in Norfolk Lat 52° 24.690'N long 1° 14.011'E”
“The historic past use by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) of part of the site many years ago for aircraft breaking raises the possibility of radium 226 contamination. The nature and extent of any possible contamination is being considered but formal investigations which require detailed planning have yet to be instigated. The Council is actively working with the Environment Agency, Health Protection Agency, MOD and others within the legal framework from government to clarify what action is appropriate to investigate the possibility of contamination.”
The Wikipedia entry for RNAS/RAF Pulham says “During World War II, Pulham Air Station was used as an aircraft salvage yard for the East of England, with several huge dumps of scrapped aircraft. The resultant contamination of the land is visible even today. The RAF used Pulham for storage and Maintenance Unit work until closure in 1958.” This activity appears to very similar to that at RNAS Donnibristle which may have lead to the contamination of Dalgety Bay with Radium.
Conclusion
The lack of information to identify whether or radium contamination is present means that only a very expensive physical survey will provide an answer.
The lesson to be learnt is that it is important to retain knowledge and information over long periods of time if you wish to answer questions of liability and risk.
