Dalgety Bay

From The Courier :-

"The Ministry of Defence has stressed it “remains committed” to playing an active role in finding a solution to radiation at Dalgety Bay.

As crunch talks between the MoD and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency continued well into Monday night, the MoD said that, alongside other parties, it was committed in achieving a “long-term solution” to the radioactive contamination issues on the beach and foreshore area of the west Fife town.

The two parties were locked in a meeting with key stakeholders — including senior manager (protective services) Roy Stewart, representing Fife Council — to try to thrash out plans to rid the area of the radioactive stain it has carried for 23 years.
It is hoped the talks could pave the way for a swift and decisive resolution to the problem of contamination which has emerged over the years from debris from dumped Second World War aircraft stationed at Donibristle.

Over the last three years 1,000 radioactive particles have been brought to the surface of the foreshore which has been fenced off to protect the community and visitors. One hundred particles are now washed up every month.


Local stakeholders, including the Dalgety Bay Forum, will be involved in the next stage of consultation on the outcome of Monday night’s meeting before formal plans are announced, possibly at the end of this month."

Little appears to happened with regard to Dalgety Bay since last years adjournment debate

The Courier press report on the meeting suggests that the Stakeholders and Regulators are doing their best to the MOD's feet to the fire.  But there is no mention as to whether  MOD has shifted its position in denying liability for the radioactive contamination at Dalgety Bay.

 It appears yet again  that the MOD is trying to drag the process out as long as possible and to avoid the situation at Dalgety Bay setting a precedent for the numerous other former MOD sites around the country where Radium or indeed other contaminates may be present and for which the risks to man and the environment  may well be un-quantified.

This calls into question the ability of SEPA to act as an effective Regulator so far as the radioactively contaminated land regime and the MOD are concerned

So yet another year has no gone by with little if any progress on resolving the issue of the radioactive contamination on the public beach at Dalgety Bay. 

It will be interesting to see if another year passes with no resolution and the MOD still denying liability

Latest update on Carbon 14 at Chatham

This post includes the the responses from the MOD and the Environment Agency (EA)

FOI request to the Environment Agency 11 August

Dear sir

                the MOD in response to a recent FOI request (ref 1)  has said that  0.95 GBq of Carbon 14 was disposed of by burial at Chatham Dockyard.  The MOD had previously disclosed that the waste buried was short lived Cobalt 60. Has the EA been informed of this new information, if so what action is the EA taking to ensure the MOD provide updated risk assessment and ensuring that the burial site meets Regulatory standards.   I feel that this is important, in that unlike other radioactive waste disposal sites, this site is in an urban area about to undergo redevelopment (ref 2) . Background information (ref3).

References

1: Request for Information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Further to my letter of 26 July 2013, I am now in a position to provide you with a substantive response to your request for information regarding nuclear waste disposal at Chatham Docks.

2: The Chatham Waters development

3:  Chatham an urban nuclear waste dump and a lasting legacy of the nuclear submarine programme


Environment Agency (EA) Response 30 August

"Thank you for your enquiry in respect of a radioactive waste burial at Chatham, Kent.

We have been aware of the authorised disposal of waste from the site at Chatham where the 
Ministry of Defence (MOD) operated part of the site as a submarine refuelling facility (both as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) and now as the Environment Agency).

HMIP was originally made aware that the wastes disposed of were primarily based on Cobalt 60 and that MOD’s environmental monitoring programme has also been based on Cobalt 60. We have recently (in 2012) been made aware of the presence of Carbon 14 and earlier this month (August) of a maximum estimated activity - about 0.95 Giga Becquerels of Carbon 14 disposed within this waste. MOD disposed of approximately 9000 cubic metres of waste at this site. Assuming the maximum activity of Carbon 14 this indicates an estimated activity concentration of about 0.04 Mega Becquerel per cubic metre or 0.032 MBq per tonne. 

You asked what action we are taking to ensure that the MOD provide an updated risk assessment. In answering this we have taken into consideration current legislation and not legislation in force when the disposals were made. If MOD or any other operator were to dispose of these wastes at the activities they contain today such wastes would be classed as “Out of Scope” under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 (Exemption Orders) – less than 10 Bq/g for Carbon 14 and 1 Bq/g for the previously declared Cobalt 60. As such the material or waste that was disposed would not be classified as radioactive waste. 

The basis on which the numerical values and waste disposal criteria have been developed are mainly related to the radiation dose which might be received by a member of the public. For out of scope values the criteria adopted for artificial radionuclides are based on a radiation dose of 10 microsieverts per year to a member of the public. These dose criteria have been selected on the basis of representing an appropriate level of risk below which regulation is not necessary In this particular case disposal made historically by the MOD at Chatham would now meet the criteria for being out of scope of regulation and regulatory control. Radiation impact assessments conducted take into account a wide variety of possible pathways and assume that no controls are placed on the disposals. Therefore we do not need to revisit the MOD risk assessment at this time.      

In addition we have with discussed with MOD how these wastes were actually buried and 
ultimately capped when the site was closed. As your question also referred to the adequacy of controls it may be of interest to you that the disposal of what was then classified as Low Level Waste at the Chatham burial ground was subject to a number of conditions as stated in the approval certificate. These included a condition that the waste should be capped with at least 1.5 metres of non-radioactive earth and that the specific activity of the waste (and material used for capping) must not exceed 3000 micro curies per cubic metre (111 MBq/m3). These are similar regulatory requirements that would be placed on a landfill site receiving out of scope waste today and at the end of its life or when capping a completed landfill cell.

The site is still owned by MOD. We have not been involved in detailed discussions with the MOD over the future of this site or any redevelopment. At this time there is no further engagement expected between ourselves and the MOD. If the MOD were to sell this land then the impact of any redevelopment would be a matter for the developer. If approached we would recommend that the developer contacts the MOD for information on the material buried, location and radioactive inventory. Any redevelopment might then need to take account of the specific type of development. "

The Environment Agency is to be commended on providing this information in particular the 
information about risk and dose. It is worrying that at no stage did the MOD provide this 
information."

The EA is silent on the issue that Carbon 14 was disposed of  without proper consideration of the risks.  It is notable that the EA only had knowledge of carbon 2012

• Unregulated disposal of radioactive waste at Chatham

" We have recently (in 2012) been made aware of the presence of Carbon 14 and earlier this month (August)"

The MOD knew about the Carbon 14 in 2000


14 August the MOD was asked

" Dear Ministry of Defence, 

I note in a recent answer to an FOI MOD have stated that a maximum of 0.95 GBq of Carbon-14 was buried by the MOD at Chatham. 

Could you please provide me with details of the calculations and assumptions used to arrive a this figure and also information about the statistical uncertainty of the figure. 

Could you provide me with information about the updated risk assessment for the burial site to take account of Carbon 14. 

Could you provide information why Carbon 14 has not been included in the environmental survey reports.  

Also whether or not the MOD has now informed the Environment Agency that Carbon 14 was also disposed by burial at Chatham when the original agreement from the then HMIP was for Cobalt 60. 

Could you tell me if the MOD has provided any information about the radioactive waste burial site to the developers of the adjacent land. If so what information has been provided."

The latest reply from the MOD  9 September

"Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Environmental Information 
Regulations (EIR) 2004. I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence does hold information 
within the scope of your request. The time limit for this request, however, needs to be 
extended from the initial 20 working days. Under the EIR, a public authority may extend 
this period if it reasonably believes that the complexity and volume of the information 
requested means that it is impracticable either to comply with the request within the earlier 
period or to make a decision to refuse to do so. In this case, I am writing to inform you, that 
we must extend the time limit for responding by a further 20 working days. I will write to 
you again no later than 7 October with a substantive response."

This calls into question the information provided by the EA because the MOD has provided no 
information on the  "details of the calculations and assumptions used to arrive a this figure and 
also information about the statistical uncertainty of the figure"

Unregulated disposal of radioactive waste at Chatham

The MOD disposed of radioactive waste by burial at Chatham in Kent.  Its notable that this disposal was not subject to regulatory/statutory  control as the Radioactive Substances Act has been dis-applied to the Ministry of Defence (MOD). 

The waste was buried with the tacit approval of the Regulator under  a "gentleman's agreement" (ref1)  and on the assumption that only small quantities of short lived ( 5.26 years ) Cobalt 60 were present in the waste.  Once sufficient time (~25 years) had passed for the Cobalt 60 to decay there could be unrestricted use of the burial site

The MOD has recently confirmed the presence of 0.95GBq of long lived Carbon14 in the waste.  Because of the very long half life of Carbon 14 (5,730 years) the burial site may have to remain in perpetuity for future generations to maintain and care for.

Has the MOD  informed the Environment Agency (EA) of this new information?  If so what action is the EA taking to ensure the MOD provide updated risk assessment and ensuring that the burial site meets Regulatory standards.  I feel that this is an important issue , in that unlike other radioactive waste disposal sites, this site is in an urban area about to undergo redevelopment.Its  concerning that the MOD has previously said

“The risk assessment for the disposal of radioactive waste by burial Chatham - It has not been possible to locate this information, it would have predated the approvals granted by the 
Department of the Environment in 1980 and has not been located in any of the files recovered”. 

It is clear  from an ORNL 1977 report  that Carbon 14 was a significant activation product in pressurised water reactors (PWR), yet the MOD only discovered that Carbon 14 was an issue in PWR waste streams in 2000.

In the response to a FOI MOD said

"Our records show that work was conducted in 2000 to determine the quantities of Carbon-
14 transferred to the British Nuclear Fuels Limited site near Drigg, Cumbria.  This work 
considered the total predicted production of Carbon-14 from the Naval Nuclear Propulsion 
Programme."


The burial site at Chatham closed in the early 1980s  containing waste from the early years of the nuclear propulsion programme, the figures that MOD have calculated for Carbon 14 are based on measurements taken in waste produced in the late 1990s. It is not clear if the figures have taken account of changes in reactor chemistry between the 1970/60s and the 1990s.  I suspect the early submarines may been more "dirty" in terms of activation products (such as Carbon 14, Colbalt 60, Tritium etc) than later submarines. If this is the case then the MOD may have significantly underestimated the amount of Carbon 14 in the waste buried at Chatham.

It is also clear from the MOD response to a FOI request

"Our records show that six monthly routine radiological monitoring is carried out at the 
disposal site within the wooded area adjacent to Pier Road, Chatham. This schedule was 
agreed with the then regulator, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution, (now part of the 
Environment Agency) in 1996. This monitoring comprises groundwater sampling and the 
measurement of surface gamma dose rates in the area.

There is currently no specific Carbon-14 monitoring undertaken of the waste at Chatham."

This is despite knowing in 2000  that Carbon 14 is present in the buried waste.

The way ahead and the future

There are advanced plans to redevelop the industrial waterside area adjacent to the site where 
the MOD buried radioactive waste. 

 The MOD needs to demonstrate that there has been no dispersion of radioactive waste including carbon 14 from the burial site into the adjacent land.  

There needs to be consideration about the effect of building and excavation work may have on integrity of the radioactive waste burial site and  the risks to people during construction and when the development is completed.

The fact that MOD has retained title to the land where the radioactive waste has been buried 
suggests the risks are not insignificant.  The best way forward may well be for the waste to be 
removed and the site cleaned up, this having been done, there could then be  un-restricted use of the site and any blight associated with the burial of the radioactive waste lifted. It would also 
demonstrate the MODs commitment to clean up the legacy of past military activities. 

Reference 

1:  A gentlemen's agreement is an informal agreement between two or more parties. It is typically oral, though it may be written, or simply understood as part of an unspoken agreement by convention or through mutually beneficial etiquette. The essence of a gentlemen's agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfillment, rather than being in any way enforceable. It is, therefore, distinct from a legal agreement or contract, which can be enforced if necessary.

FOI requesting further information about Carbon 14 at Chatham

FOI requesting Land Quality Assessment

History of Nuclear Submarine Refitting 1970-1983

Dalgety Bay - adjournment debate

It is clear from the adjournment debate  just how desperate the MOD is to avoid liability, the MOD is quite aware of the reputational damage the Dalgety Bay contamination issue has and continues to cause. In particular the knock on effect in Scotland in the context of the referendum on independence and MOD nuclear programmes in Scotland.  

The adjournment debate achieved little apart from even more polarising views on liability etc. The MOD attempted to discredit SEPA and question their competence as the Scottish Environmental Regulator.  The Minister Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison) approach to the debate was patronising and overbearing and yet again shows the MOD policy is to fight liability every inch of the way even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The MODs' offer of help whilst offering no admission of liability is a cynical ploy to avoid  court action that could set a legal precedent should the MOD be found liable in the courts for the pollution it caused by historic activities involving Radium. Such a precedent would have implications for hundreds of sites across the UK such as Wig Bay Loch Rayan where there is the potential for Radium contamination and the risk of harm to both man and the environment.

Following the debate SEPA issued a statement  where Calum MacDonald, SEPA Executive Director, said: 

“I was surprised and disappointed by Dr Murrison’s comment that SEPA has been less than helpful."  

I believe its SEPA role to Regulate without fear or favour. In the past I had professional dealings with SEPA I found them to be competent, experienced, constructive and willing to listen . 

It's also clear from the debate that SEPA appears to have  better records of the MODs' historic activities involving Radium than the MOD itself.

Dr Murrison " I must say that we have already looked for some of the documents cited by SEPA but cannot find them. "

SEPA has shown extreme patience with the MOD I believe the time has now come for SEPA to take legal action against the MOD to resolve the issue without further delay

Video of the debate  starts at 21:55



COMARE

SEPA attended a meeting of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) today, in which the Committee made five recommendations about the radioactive contamination at Dalgety Bay.:

The recommendations were:

1. The Committee concluded that on the basis of available data to COMARE, from SEPA and Public Health England, on potential Committed Effective Doses, there are sources of potential harm to the public (at Dalgety Bay).
2. The continuing programme of demarcation and monitoring was not a long term viable solution.
3. Remediation should start as quickly as possible,
4. Monitoring & removal of radioactive sources should continue at a frequency and area determined by the Regulator, but this should be to at least current levels,
5. A list should be formed of all Radium-226 sites across the UK.

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

Video of DU firings at Eskmeals

In response to a FOI request the Ministry of Defense has released a video of the DU firings carried out at Eskmeals on the Cumbria coast.

The video shows how during the early years of the firing programme significant quantities of  DU were released to atmosphere and how in the later years of the firing programme efforts were made to reduce the discharge of DU to atmosphere



Related Posts

• DU firings at Eskmeals "As Low As Reasonably Practical"? 
• Unregulated discharge of Depleted Uranium to the Environment
• Depleted Uranium measurements Eskmeals West Cumbria

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.

"Dalgety Bay & Hillend Community Council

See the item of 3 October for details of what has prompted this reply
The Chairman writes: A reply from Moray Estates indicates that "They being professionally advised, could equally assume that had clear and accurate information been passed over relating to the exact nature and content of the salvage area in question then, it would be unlikely the Estate would have completed the purchase".

On this reply PLEASE NOTE THAT IF ANYBODY IN THE LOCAL AREA HAS KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OPERATIONS PARTICULARY IN RESPECT OF DONIBRISTLE AIRFIELD ON INCINERATION, DUMPING OF MATERIAL OR OTHER WORKS IN RELATION TO THE FORESHORE IN DALGETY BAY DURING THE 1950'S AND 1960'S, PLEASE CONTACT THE CHAIRMAN cmcphail.oceanwheels@btinternet.com or tel  01383 823750. 

YOU MAY HAVE IMPORTANT INFORMATION WE CAN SEND TO THE MOD AND SEPA."

Letter from MOD to Colin McPhail MBE leader of Hillend Community Council

Dear Mr McPhail,

DALGETY BAY FORESHORE RADIATION

Thank you for your letter of the 6 August 2012. I can confirm that a copy was forwarded to the Rt Hon Andrew Robathan, whilst he was still the Minister for Defence Pensions, Welfare and Veterans, as you requested. Please accept my apologies for the delay in confirming this and for replying to your letter.

As you will be aware we are now in the process of finalising arrangements to commence Stage 2 of the Investigation Plan and hope to have everything agreed ready to start in October. This will include engaging with residents, and I would like to thank you for your offer of assistance. I understand that my officials have already been in touch in this regard.

With regard to the sale of the former RNAS Donibristle, it is unfortunate that  we have not been able to establish the exact details of the documentation which was provided as part of the sale. We cannot therefore, comment on whether or not the information in question was passed across. What is certain is that we would have complied with the practice and legal requirements of the day. Given the fact that the salvage section was still present at the time of sale, combined with the breadth of the proposal put forward by the Moray Estates Development Company in respect of the site, it would seem fair to assume that they had a detailed knowledge of the site before committing to its purchase.

Returning to the Investigation Plan, we remain committed to delivering the investigation in order to assist SEPA to determine the nature and extent of the problem and what needs to be done to ensure the protection of the local community.

Again, please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Hutchinson
Chief Operating Officer
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
DESK 9, LEVEL 5 ZONE A, MOD MAIN BUILDING , WHITEHALL, LONDON, SW1A 2HB
MOD telephone: 9621 78294
Telephone:   0207 807 8294    0207 807 8294?
Fax:   0207 218 2470    0207 218 2470
Email: DIO-COSOpspport@mod.uk
Website


The letter makes it clear that the MOD assumed that it would seem fair to assume that the Moray Estates Development Company had a detailed knowledge of the site before committing to its purchase. This is clearly an attempt to shift liability away from the MOD onto the Moray Estates Development Company.   The MOD has not given in the letter any evidence to back up this assumption. It also calls into question how many other situations there are, where the MOD has sold land  making the same assumption.



DALGETY BAY FORESHORE RADIATION  e-petition

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

You can sign our official UK Goverment e-petition, and you can join our email campaign. Please do both! Urge everyone you meet to do the same

"I respectfully ask the Ministry of Defence and Scottish Environment Protection Agency to state that remedial work on the contaminated foreshore area in Dalgety Bay will begin immediately after the investigation plan is satisfactorily completed and that those deemed responsible for the contamination will fund the work and have it completed by the end of 2013"

Unregulated discharge of Depleted Uranium to the environment

Thank you for your enquiry dated 21 September 2012. This has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000.

You asked for: 

 "letters of agreement from the Environment Agency and its predecessor organisations for  the MOD to discharge of depleted uranium to the environment from Eskmeals and  letters of agreement from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and its predecessor organisations for the MOD to discharge of depleted uranium to the environment from  Kirkcudbright." 

"I am writing to advise you that the information you requested is not held.  There is no licensing as such of the Ministry of Defence's depleted uranium firing activities. The  procedure adopted at the outset of the depleted uranium trials programme, which is still in force, is  for regulatory authorities with Health and Safety and Environmental Protection responsibilities to  be involved in the design of the safety arrangements and to visit the sites as and when they wish."

In the case of Kirkcudbright some 6,907 shells have been fired into the Solway Hansard and  there appears to be no accurate figures for the amount of DU dispersed to the environment at Eskmeals. 

JSP 392 Vol 2,  Leaflet 30  "DEPLETED URANIUM" states that there are so far as the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93)  is concerned there are parallel arrangements, this being the case there should be letters of agreement from the environmental regulators for the discharge of depleted uranium to the environment.  The response to the FOI request shows that none were obtained  and the discharges were unregulated. 

It may be that the MOD felt that it would be pointless to seek letters of agreement form the environmental Regulators as they were unlikely to agree to the discharges and so far as the MOD were concerned it was fortunate that the RSA93 does not apply to the MOD. 

The response to this FOI request clearly shows the MOD failed to meet its own policy to seek letters of agreement from the environmental  Regulators  when discharging substantial quantities of radioactive substances into the environment.  

Extract from JSP 392 Vol 2,  Leaflet 30  "DEPLETED URANIUM" 


"3 In addition to the general requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the 
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the following specific legislation applies 
directly or is applied indirectly through parallel arrangements designed to achieve equivalent standards: 
• Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99) (apply directly). 
• Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93) (parallel arrangements)"



References

MOU between the MOD and Environment Agency

MOD Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Committee Papers

In response to a FOI request the MOD have released  the minutes of a number of committees concerned with radiation protection and the management of radioactive waste.

Link to FOI requesting :-

"a; the minutes,
b: agendas
c: Terms of reference

for

a: the Radiation Protection Policy Committee (RPPC)
b: the Radioactive Waste Working Group (RWWG)
c: the Radioactive Waste Information Group (RAWIG),

for the period 1990 to 2000"

The MOD provided the following information

Radioactive Waste Working Group RWWG

Terms of Reference

Minutes

7  January 1999
20 May 1999
9 September 1999
13 January 2000
7 June 20000
19 September 2000

Radiation Protection Policy Committee RPPC

Terms of Reference

a:                    b:

Minutes

17 October 1996
28 January 1998
9 June 1998

Radioactive Waste Information Group RAWIG

Terms of Reference -  not provided

Minutes

13 January 1999
18 May 2000
8 November 2000

Its notable that apart from the agendas these are the only documents provided,  the MOD said that

 " Despite an extensive search of the archives we have been unable to locate a complete set of minutes, agendas and terms of reference for the committees detailed in your request. Some of the files which may have contained the minutes, agendas and terms of reference for the committees have been destroyed."   

 It seems very surprising that the minutes of MOD central committees dealing with issues as significant as radiation safety and the management of radioactive waste and radioactively contaminated land  have been lost or destroyed. 

These remaining documents  provide a snap-shot  of the radiation protection and radioactive waste issues faced by the MOD and show how the MOD was responding. The documents  also provide a good indication of the value of the papers that have been lost.

The more cynical  may be suspect, within the MOD there is a deliberate policy of destroying  files to avoid  answering difficult questions about past activities and dodging liability.  Such a policy appears to have resulted  in  a "corporate lobotomy"  so far as knowledge of  historic activities are concerned. It also results in an inability to learn from history that would help inform decisions concerning current activities and issues.

A previous post  also drew attention the loss of files and records

Failure to ensure the preservation of the minutes of the  central MOD Committee concerned with Radioactive Waste Management for the  period 1975 to 1985.