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HMIP was originally made aware that the wastes disposed of were primarily based on Cobalt 60 and that MOD’s environmental monitoring programme has also been based on Cobalt 60.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"

MOD - Nuclear Liabilities Management Strategy

In 2007 the MOD published its policy on the management of radioactive waste arising from the defence nuclear programmes.

• Policy
• Annex to the policy paper
• Flyer

Four years later In 2011 the MOD published “Nuclear Liabilities Management Strategy “  the strategy was meant to explain how the policy outcomes set out in the policy paper were to be delivered, who was responsible for their delivery,  when these would be delivered,  and to identify costs and how/when the costs would be met.


However the strategy is very much a narrative document describing sources of wastes and options for management.  It is notable that the Strategy is very much focused on the submarine programme.   


There is no mention of decommissioning Aldermaston; the strategy states “End Point AWE will continue to support the DNP for the foreseeable future.”  The MOD is blind to the need to anticipate change and in any case at some point in the future buildings and facilities at AWE will need to be decommissioned and replaced as they age.


The MOD policy required that the strategy would be produced in consultation with stakeholders including NGOs. As far as can be determined no NGOs were consulted. This is in contrast to the national strategy produced by the NDA where the NDA actively engaged with external stakeholders including local communities and NGOs.


The strategy says “The MOD will consider public engagement on a case by case basis taking account of Government policy and environmental and planning law” The policy says 
“the MOD remains confident that in conjunction with stakeholders (OGDs and NGOs), it is able to deliver the policy set out above” 


The expectation was that MOD in developing the strategy will meet the requirement of its stated policy to involve NGOs. However it is now clear from the strategy MOD will only do the minimum required by law 


“6.3 Funding
P134 Expenditure on managing the MOD’s
nuclear liabilities will be appropriately prioritised
within the Defence budget. Funding for strategy
development and implementation is not reliant
on income from the realisation of assets’ values.”


The strategy fails in that it provides no indication of costs or how funding is to be provided against the ongoing programme of resource cuts and savings targets 

In 2007 Hansard reported  decommisioning liabilities of over £ 9 billion

19 Jan 2007 : Column 1365W—continued

"Nuclear Liabilities

Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department’s nuclear liabilities have been quantified; and how they are funded. [116180]

Des Browne: The Department’s nuclear liabilities are set out in the Department’s Annual Report and Accounts, the most recent version being those for 2005-06 (HC1394) published on 14 July 2006; a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The estimate of the MOD’s nuclear liabilities (page 220) is £9,753,827,000"

The lack of any costs in the strategy suggest that MOD might be trying to hide an increase in decommmsssioning costs





“6.2 People, Skills and Capability
P133 Available Suitably Qualified and
Experienced Personnel (SQEP) are essential to
the MOD and its industrial partners and supply
chain to deliver successful liability management,
and decommissioning and disposal projects. The
MOD’s SQEP initiatives support the development
and implementation of this Strategy.”


The DNEB have for years pointed out that levels of SQEP staffing are below that required for the safe delivery of the nuclear programme. The ever increasing need to cut costs and the priority being given to delivery of operational capability rather than backend decommissioning  suggest this is a significant area of weakness in the delivery the policy outcomes for managing nuclear liabilities


“6.5 Information and Knowledge
Management


P136 The MOD recognises the long programme
timescales associated with implementation of
this strategy; the MOD’s system of information
and knowledge management is essential for
the effective retention of information and for
maintaining continuity between projects.”


Recent revelations have shown MODs unable to retain information and records over the medium let alone the long term.


Conclusion


The Nuclear Liabilities Management Strategy lacks substance and detail and appears to be little more than an exercise in window dressing, particularly when compared to the strategy produced for the civil sector by the NDA.


Reference:


NDA paper "Non NDA Liability Management Strategy March 2011" includes reference to the Ministry of Defence

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

This is the MOD response to a recent FOI request concerning radioactive waste


"Thank you for your email of 4 May 2012 requesting release of the minutes of the central MOD Committee concerned with Radioactive Waste Management for the period 1975 to 1985. Your request is being treated as a request under the Freedom  of Information Act 2000.  

We are writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, the information you requested is not held by the Ministry of Defence for the period you have requested."


The response points out in the clearest terms that MOD has failed to ensure the retention of key information for the period  1975 to 1985 about the way in which radioactive waste has been managed and disposed of. It may also mean that key information about policy and standards may have been lost including records relating to MODs involvement with NIREX.


Reference  JSP 392 Vol 1 Chp 7 Jan 2008 MOD Radioactive Waste Working Group

Sea Dumping

This page provides links to a variety of reports and papers on the sea dumping of waste including radioactive waste, chemical weapons, munitions.  The emphasis is on the UK military legacy

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

Background


Chatham Dockyard played a key part in the United Kingdom’s nuclear propulsion programme. Refitting and refueling of nuclear submarines was carried out at Chatham from 1970 until March 1983.  These activities gave rise to radioactive waste which had to be disposed of.  Higher activity wastes were disposed of to BNFL Sellafield in Cumbria. However some of the lower activity wastes were disposed of by local burial within the Dockyard site.  This was done with the agreement of the Regulator HMIP (reference 1) on the assumption the waste contained short lived Cobalt 60 which would decay away over a period of 20 to 30 years. In interesting note that in an answer to a PQ about radioactive waste arrangements at Chatham, there was no mention of the disposal of radioactive waste by burial at Chatham. Hansard (26 Nov 2002: Column 172W)


More about the history of refitting and nuclear work at Chatham Dockyard


Amount of waste buried


Approximately 300 cubic meters of radioactive waste was buried between 1968 and 1986 - reference 2


Risk assessment


Reference 6  to quote the MOD “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”.   This is a significant failure in the MOD’s corporate memory.


Cobalt 60 and Carbon 14 


Cobalt 60 has a short half live of around 6 years, so that after about 24 years the amount of radioactivity will have fallen by approximately 93%. It was on this basis that it was considered safe to dispose of the waste by local burial.


However it came to light that nuclear waste arising from the submarine programme also contains significant amounts of Carbon 14 with a half life of 5,700 years. This issue was picked up by the Governments Independent Advisory Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (RWMAC) in their 2001 report on the Ministry of Defence radioactive waste management practices. Reference 3, 4.  DRPS estimates of carbon 14 in wastes arsing form the naval nuclear prolusion programme can be found at reference 5 paragraphs J and K.


Monitoring


Reference 7:  the attached MOD letter dated 13 October 2008 clearly shows that whilst environmental monitoring for Cobalt 60 was being carried out, it was not for Carbon14. This despite the knowledge dating back to 2001 that Carbon14 may be present.


Burial site


It is notable that the burial site remains MOD property this suggests that  the risks from the buried waste are not insignificant.  The site is walled off by a 3 metre high wall, whilst the site its self has reverted to scrub and woodland.

Google Earth view showing the dump site at Chatham out-lined in red

As can be seen from the image above the burial site the immediate area is undergoing extensive redevelopment including the water-front, a new marina and housing etc.

View of the dump site from Pier Approach Road the dump is behind the wall and appears to be heavily wooded

Conclusion

• The assumption that Cobalt 60 was only significant radionuclide present in the waste buried at Chatham was mostly likely wrong.
• The non-availability of a risk assessment or safety case for the burials a Chatham is a serious failing of corporate memory and does little to engender public confidence in the MODs ability to manage the safety of legacy issues over the medium and long term.
• In the absence of any available safety case, the MOD in conjunction with the Environment Agency needs to publish a revised safety case for the burial site to take account of the presence of Carbon 14 in the waste. The safety case should also demonstrate that the burial meets current standards and regulatory requirements to ensure both environmental and human safety. If this cannot be done to the satisfaction of stakeholders and the Regulators serious consideration must be given to remediation of the site.
• The situation at Chatham does little to improve public confidence in the Governments policy and the NDAs strategy for managing radioactively waste nationally and the MOD in particular. It remains to be seen how the MOD will respond to issues surrounding the waste dump at Chatham, but if Dalgety Bay is an indicator, the signs for speedy action are not good.

References


1: HMIP agreement to dispose of radioactive waste by burial 
2: MOD letter dated July 1987
3: RWMAC report on the MODs’ radioactive waste management practices 2001 - Carbon14 paragraphs 6.52 to 6.62
4:  MOD response to RWMAC regarding Carbon 14
5: DRPS estimates of Carbon14 in waste streams arising from the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Programme paragraphs J and K
6: Letter dated 7 August 2009 from MOD providing information on burials of radioactive waste at Chatham
7: Letter dated Medway Council dated 29 May 2009 with attached letter from MOD dated 13 October 2008

Lack of an independent review of the MODs radioactive management practices

It was custom and practice that MOD would periodically seek independent review of its radioactive waste practices; benefits included engendering public confidence and the advice from the civil nuclear sector against which MOD performance could be independently bench-marked.
  
These reviews were carried out by the Governments independent advisory committee on radioactive waste RWMAC made up of experts in the field of radioactive waste management. RWMACs role in providing advice to government was taken over by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM).


The last report by RMAC on MoD radioactive waste practices was published in 2001, since then there has been no further review. 


An FOI request dated 24th February 2012 asked


“it is over ten years since the last independent periodic review of the
MODs radioactive waste management practices by RWMAC.


Could you provide me with the following information :-


a: Could you please tell me why there has not been a review of MODs
radioactive waste management practices by CoWRM RWMACs successor or any
other body since 2000; and


b: if it is MODs intention to commission a review of the MODs radioactive
waste management practices.


c: If this is the case when is it intended such a review will take place.”


On the 23rd March MOD replied

“We are still working to identify any information that falls within the scope of your request 
and I apologise that we have been unable to respond to your request in the 20 days as set 
out in the FOI Act.  I will send you a final response or an update as soon as possible but 
no later than 22 April 2012. “


This seems to suggest that those responsible for policy issues such as this within the MOD have either forgotten the need for periodic independent reviews of the MOD’s radioactive waste management practices or it is now policy that no such reviews should take place.  The former suggests incompetence where as if the latter is the case, this suggests that there are issues that the MOD does not wish to come to the attention of the public or the media.  Either way this is a worrying state of affairs and only serves to weaken confidence in the MODs ability to properly manage radioactive waste arising from both the nuclear weapons and propulsion programmes. It also points out MODs failure to comply with its statutory duties under the Freedom of Information Act.


You can track progress on this FOI request on the “What Do They Know” website

23 April MOD failed to reply


As of 23 April the MOD have again demonstrated their inability to meet statutory duties and their own deadlines to provide an update by 22 April or to provide the information requested.


Update - MOD replied late on the 23 of April


"As you are aware the holding letter I provided on 23 March stated that a substantive 
response or a further update would be provided within 20 working days; taking the Easter 
break into consideration, this should have read 23 April 2012.  Unfortunately, a 
typographical error meant that 22 April was written inadvertently, and I apologise if this has 
caused confusion."


This suggests  the Government cannot get its dates right as was the case with the  Home Secretary Theresa May trying to deport Abu Qatada, the extremist Muslim cleric, Report in the Telegraph


"Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act gives an applicant the right to access 

recorded information held by public authorities at the time the request is made and does
not require public authorities to answer questions, provide explanations or give opinions,
unless this is recorded information held.  I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence (MOD)
holds no recorded information that would provide an answer to the questions you have
asked in your request.” 

The response suggests that the MOD is far from keen to answer the questions, suggesting they have something to hide or they have dropped the ball on this issue.  The MOD  may also have reasons not to subject the Submarine Dismantling Project project to independent scrutiny or there are problems delivering the policy outcomes that the MOD committed to in their policy statement publshed in 2007

MOD policy on contaminated land and alienated sites

In response to a FOI request about how MOD responded to the recommendations contained in the 2000 report by RWMAC    “RWMAC's Advice to Ministers on The Ministry of Defence's Arrangements for Dealing with Radioactively Contaminated Land“. It is clear from the response to action 12 that the MOD has no intention of identifying  what contamination exists on land that it has disposed of prior to the LQA programme such as Dalgety Bay.  


It is also clear from the response to action 12 of the RWMAC report that MOD believes this responsibility lies with Local Authorities.  Local Authorities hold few if any records that would assist them in identifying contamination on former MOD sites let alone the financial resources to support such activity.  


I believe it is important for the safety of the environment and the public, that risks from defence related pollutants are identified and if necessary remediated.  Examples of such pollutants are :-

• radioactive substances such as  radium, 
• chemical weapon residues such as mustard gas, 
• asbestos, 
• organic solvents, 
• explosives and ammunition
• toxic heavy metals such as mercury, lead and cadmium 

I also believe that it is the MODs’  responsibility to  identify where there is a legacy of pollution from defence activities  and where identified as the polluter, MOD should pay to for any clean up rather that  pushing off the responsibility onto poorly resourced local authorities  and council tax payers and Regulators 


RWMAC ACTION PLAN page 3 


Action 12
“MOD should give thought to the feasibility of compiling information on disposals of land predating the LQA programme, where radioactive contamination might have been involved.”


MOD response 


“The introduction of EPA 1990 Part 2A places the responsibility for inspecting land with the local authority to identify land contamination.”

Radioactive waste management strategies Civil & Defence

It is interesting to look at the NDA website and the NDA strategy which sets out to establish a world class programme of safe, cost-effective, accelerated and environmentally responsible decommissioning of the UK's civil nuclear legacy. I compared this with the information published by the MOD for the management of Defence related nuclear legacy on the MOD website, where I found no strategy for the management of the defence nuclear legacy; this is despite a policy statement published by MOD in 2007 and annex which sets out in detail the requirements for such a strategy. There is also a supporting policy fact sheet .

The absence of a strategy means there is no indication of how the policy outcomes are to be delivered, or when, what are the priorities, provision financial resources. It is notable that the DESB annual report 2009 to the Defence Board makes no reference to and provides no assurance on the delivery of the radioactive waste policy outcomes.

The 2009 DESB report does include an input from DNESB Chairman which mentions “that it will become increasingly difficult to maintain that the defence nuclear programmes are being managed with due regard for the protection of the workforce, the public and the environment.” but also contains no reference to the strategy for the management of the defence nuclear legacy. Despite this the DNESB Chairman reports “Substantial Assurance”.

Navy dock in danger of becoming a 'nuclear dumping ground'

Guardian reports
“Navy dock in danger of becoming a 'nuclear dumping ground' Military chiefs are running out of space to store the UK's growing number of obsolete nuclear submarines, prompting fears that one of the country's busiest naval ports is set to be turned into a nuclear scrapyard."

The Isolus website states that a fourth round of consultation is due to start in 2010 and will last for at least 12 weeks.

The delays in addressing the decommissioned nuclear submarines mirror the situation on MODs general strategy for the management of nuclear waste, which it has failed to publish.

The requirement for the strategy is detailed in the in the policy published in October 2007 “Ministry of Defence Policy for Decommissioning and the Disposal of Radioactive Waste and Residual Material arising from the Nuclear Programme”

IAEA & Euratom apply to defence related radioactive materials and wastes managed by the NDA

The NDA has confirmed that the IAEA safeguards regime for radioactive materials/substances and radioactive waste and also, the provisions of the Euratom Treaty and subsidiary legislation does apply to radioactive wastes and substances/materials originating from UK defence activities managed, stored or disposed by the NDA or its contractors. I must admit I was somewhat surprised at the response.

Transcript of my email to the NDA and their response

FoI Request to the NDA dated January 8 2009

Dear JH
Thank you for your reply but correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall you replying yes or no to this question bearing in mind the reference I made UK defence activities

"So am I correct that your reply means that the IAEA safeguards regime for radioactive materials/substances and radioactive waste and also, the provisions of the Euratom Treaty and subsidiary legislation will apply to radioactive wastes and substances/materials originating from UK defence activities managed, stored or disposed by the NDA or its contractors."

Fred Dawson

Reply from NDA dated February 9 2009

Dear Mr Dawson

Sorry for the delay in responding. The answer is yes.

Regards

JH Information Access Manager

NDA, Herdus House, Westlakes Science and Technology Park, Moor Row, Cumbria, CA24 3HU
T: 01925 80 2077
W: http://www.nda.gov.uk