Supplementary memorandum by the Ministry
of Defence (23 January 2003)
1. The thrust of the Council for National
Parks (CNP) memorandum appears to be that (a) MoD is intending
to undertake a major development at Fylingdales; and (b) in that
case it must have proper regard both to planning regulations and
the special status of the National Park in which it is located.
2. MoD does not agree that the proposed
upgrade is a major development in planning law terms. Subject
to establishing full and final details of the work involved, MoD's
understanding is that it would not have any environmental impact
and does not involve a change of use in planning terms. Regarding
(b), the Government is not bound by planning law, but it has committed
itself to behave as though it were. The procedures in which it
adheres to are set out in the then Department of the Environment's
Circular 18/84. These are not identical to, but are designed to
have the same effect as, the regulations in the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
3. The key issue in relation to the upgrade
work is that if it constituted "development" within
the meaning of the 1990 Act, MoD would submit a Notice of Proposed
Development. This would initiate formal planning consultation
processes (including public consultation, and a requirement for
the planning authority to accept or reject the proposal). However,
as noted above, MoD's understanding is that the upgrade will not
constitute development within the meaning of the Act—and
that therefore no formal planning consultation is needed. Once
full details are available, MoD will present evidence to the local
planning authority to substantiate this.
4. PPGs and Circulars issued by DoE (DETR
and successor departments) are designed to support and clarify
the planning system in the UK, which is a mechanism "to regulate
the development and use of land in the public interest" (PPG
1, paragraph 39). The legal definition of "development"
(paragraph 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) is fundamental
to this objective and it is of this definition which MoD has been
mindful of in reaching its preliminary conclusions that:
— the proposal is unlikely to involve
building works which materially affect the external appearance
of the building; and
— the additional missile defence mission
does not generate any material affects on the use of the site
or its impact on the surrounding area.
The radar will acquire an extra capability and
mission which will be periodically tested, and used in the event
of ballistic missile attack. But the radar's essential role of
providing surveillance of the upper atmosphere and space, and
tracking objects, will continue as before, with no extra environmental
impact whether related to traffic and activity levels, radio frequency
emissions, or anything else.
5. Although MoD does not believe that any
formal planning consultation will be required, it does recognise
the need to remain in close touch with the local planning authorities
to engage them in informal consultation, as underlined by the
Secretary of State in evidence to the Committee on 15 January.
MoD intends to provide full supporting evidence, based on further
discussions with the US authorities and detailed site surveys,
to the planning authorities to substantiate the position that
no "development" is involved. MoD expects to have this
evidence assembled within two to three months. The report will
be in a form that the Planning Authority may make public, to assist
in assuaging the "uncertainties" that the CNP refer
to. We expect to be able to establish to the satisfaction of the
local planning authorities that no need for formal planning consultation
arises. MoD has also, of course, already embarked on a process
of public (and Parliamentary) information and discussion about
missile defence.
6. The new missile defence capability will
be exercised and used only very rarely. For the vast majority
of the time the radar will continue to function exactly as before.
As regards electromagnetic radiation, MoD has made available to
the North Yorks Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA) an analysis
of the results of previous surveys of RAF Fylingdales emissions,
which are well within accepted safety standards (copy attached).
MoD is confident that this position will not change following
the upgrade, but has further work in hand to verify this—for
inclusion in the report mentioned above.
7. The relationship of the upgrade to any
future developments on missile defence for the UK is covered in
MoD's public discussion document published on 9 December 2002.
As the Committee is aware, there is no proposal to site an X-Band
radar at Fylingdales or anywhere else in the UK. Nor is there
any intention to site missile interceptors at Fylingdales. We
cannot foresee any future major development at RAF Fylingdales,
although we have noted that a variety of routine works projects
are likely to be undertaken over time to preserve the fabric of
the station and its operational capability. But these will happen
in any case, with or without the upgrade for missile defence purposes.
8. Circular 12/96, setting out Government
National Parks policy in the light of the 1995 Environment Act,
noted that existing defence uses of National Parks would continue
into the foreseeable future. (In 1986, prior to the replacement
of the "golf-balls" with the "pyramid", the
Government undertook to return the station to nature "when
the station is no longer required for its present purposes".
However, it is so still required.) It said that "new, renewed
or intensified use of land" in the National Parks should
be the subject of formal consultation. It is clear that the proposed
upgrade does not fall in this category.
9. The Circular also observes that:
"defence use of National Parks makes a major
contribution to the country's defence capability, and provides
essential facilities which cannot be easily replicated elsewhere.
It can also be an important factor in contributing to the local
economic and social well-being of Park communities."
10. Paragraph 4.5 of Planning Policy Guidance
Note 7 (PPG7, issued in February 1997), referred to by the CNP,
also refers to major development in the National Parks, which
"should not take place save in exceptional circumstances."
Again, the proposed upgrade is not a major development of the
type with which this guidance is concerned, that is, those that
have a significant impact on the special environment to be found
in the Parks. PPG7 also notes that "due regard should also
be had to the economic and social well-being of local communities".
11. As regards the points in paragraph 26
of the submission, in MoD's view it will provide the necessary
evidence to support our case that there is no environmental impact
arising from the upgrade. Our environmental study will take due
account of relevant planning circulars and PPGs. MoD stands ready
to answer enquiries arising from its report, and sees no need
for an arbitrator of factual disputes in the absence of any development
within the meaning of the Acts being proposed.
RADIATION EMISSIONS
ISSUES RAISED
BY YORKSHIRE
CND
1. This note deals with the specific matters
on electromagnetic radiation emission from RAF Fylingdales that
are raised in Yorkshire CND's submission to the Committee, in
particular in the appendix entitled "Electro-magnetic radiation
(EMR) concerns associated with existing and proposed development
at RAF Fylingdales".
2. The CND submission concedes that the
emissions at RAF Fylingdales are below the levels recommended
by the UK standards authority, the National Radiological Protection
Board (NRPB), and takes issue instead with the standards themselves,
on which MoD is not the authority to advise. The report contains
little direct reference to specific emissions levels at RAF Fylingdales,
but surveys conducted by the USAF, the RAF, and independent specialists
since the Radar was rebuilt upgraded in the early 1990s have all
agreed there is no health or environmental hazard to the public.
3. The first section, entitled Health effects,
quotes four conclusions from a survey of the new radar conducted
in the early 1990s for the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, on
which the MoD views are:
(a) MoD agrees with the first conclusion
that the emissions are within the UK safety guidelines.
(b) The RAF findings have been that the EM
radiation levels at ground level from the new radar are below
the original levels from the old "golf balls".
(c) The levels to the south of the station
increased because the radar had not previously routinely looked
in this direction. These levels remain well within the recommended
safe limits.
(d) There is evidence that some car electronic
control systems may be affected in close proximity to the radar
but we are not aware of any evidence of interference with the
electronic control systems of vehicles travelling along the A169.
4. The second section deals with the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards,
and also contains comments from the World Health Organisation
(WHO). It should be borne in mind that UK safety thresholds are
based on NRPB guidelines and not those of ICNIRP, and that emissions
from Fylingdales have been shown to be stable and well below the
thresholds set by either of these bodies. The CND document makes
an issue of the fact that exposures at Fylingdales are not 1,000
times below ICNIRP guidelines, implying that this is, or should
be, a requirement. But at no point does the WHO suggest that the
levels need to be at least 1,000 times below the safety guidelines.
The WHO makes it clear that the ICNIRP guidelines:
"protect against all established RF health
effects and are developed following reviews of all the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, including reports on cancer and non-thermal
effects"
5. Furthermore the WHO state:
"At present, there is no substantive
evidence that adverse health effects, including cancer, can occur
in people exposed to RF levels at or below the limits set by international
standards. However, more research is needed to fill certain gaps
in knowledge"
Public exposure to electromagnetic radiation at Fylingdales
is well below the international standards.
6. The last paragraph of the section on
ICNIRP presents an incomplete picture and tries to establish concerns
that are then not substantiated. In the first of the three associated
bullets CND focuses on peak power whereas in fact it is average
power that is important for determining safety standards. The
fact that radar systems send electromagnetic waves in pulses and
not continuously makes the average power emitted much lower than
the peak pulse power. The second and third bullets are accurate
and demonstrate why the human exposure to radiation emissions
from radar is significantly lower than for other emitters. As
the WHO note:
"A number of factors significantly reduce
human exposure to RF generated by radar systems, often by a factor
of at least 100"
7. The final section asks if the international
standards are reliable. International scientific consensus supports
the present guidelines and there is not the evidence to justify
changing them at present. CND selectively refer to work and quotations
that differ from the consensus. A 2002 NRPB report on the 1998
ICNIRP guidelines concluded that the existing UK advice provides
sufficient protection for the general public from direct and indirect
effects of radiation emissions and that any health benefits from
further reductions in exposure have not been demonstrated. In
the time available MoD has not been able to obtain a copy of the
referenced report by Hyland to the European Parliament, and so
cannot comment on that. MoD has seen no scientific evidence of
the assertions made by Richard Albanese in February 2002, and
no published papers. The suggestion that the pulse repetition
frequency of the radar could cause health effects is unsubstantiated
by the NRPB.
MOD REPORT
PASSED TO
THE NORTH
YORK MOORS
NATIONAL PARKS
AUTHORITY IN
OCTOBER 2002
RADAR EMISSIONS
FROM RAF FYLINGDALES
Ref A: Documents of the NRPB Volume 4 No 5 1993 (www.nrpb.org)
Background
1. There has been a Ballistic Missile Early
Warning Radar at RAF Fylingdales for almost 40 years. The original
three "Golf Balls", which became operational in 1963,
housed traditional radar dishes which were mechanically steered
to look for missile launches over a broad arc to the North and
East. The current radar, which became operational in 1992, has
three fixed transmitting surfaces (faces A, B, and C) which together
provide coverage over a 360 circle by moving the beam electronically.
This newer technology is known as a solid state phased array radar
(SSPAR). The transmitting surfaces are about 10 metres above ground
level.
Guidelines and Managing Emissions
2. The Government has appointed a body to
establish guidelines on the exposure of UK citizens to radio-frequency
emissions such as those from the SSPAR. This organisation is known
as the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The MoD
has its own group of specialists called the Directorate of Engineering
Interoperability and Information Services (DEI&IS), based
at Blandford Camp, Dorset. In addition, as part of its Health
and Safety responsibility and duty of care obligations, the station
also has a team capable of monitoring radar emissions on site
for the safety of the workforce.
3. The NRPB restrictions, detailed in Reference
A above, are determined by the radio frequency (RF) at which a
site operates. The transmissions from Fylingdales are electromagnetic
and non-ionising.[4]
In simple terms this means that excessive exposure would result
in the heating of human tissue. The restrictions set by the NRPB,
and the way in which the radar is made to comply with them, ensure
that people are not exposed in excess of the guidelines. MoD Policy
is that levels of exposure for personnel will conform to NRPB
guidance wherever reasonably practicable. Such exposure should
also be kept to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. It
is a feature of NRPB guidance that occupational exposures and
public exposure are controlled according to the same criteria.
4. The NRPB gives two sets of figures in
their guidance. The first is a restriction beyond which the level
of human exposure to emissions should not go. The second level,
is derived from the first one but expressed as a quantity that
is easier to measure and is a level at which an investigation
should be conducted to ensure that the first stringent level will
not be exceeded. Requiring an investigation does not mean that
the emissions are dangerous. Fylingdales operates well below the
NRPB investigation level. Levels of exposure are measured in milliwatts
per square centimetre (mW/cm2). The NRPB investigation level for
the SSPAR is 2.6mW/cm2. The Fylingdales' monitoring team uses
this level for all monitoring purposes.
5. Exposure at Fylingdales is minimised
firstly because the radar is constantly scanning back and forth
over an area of sky, and the beam does not linger in one direction.
Secondly, the radar is prevented by both electronic and software
means from transmitting any lower than 3 above the horizontal.
This means that the height of the main beam above ground level
increases by approximately 10 metres for every 200 metres of horizontal
distance travelled. Finally, as the beam gets further from the
radar the levels of RF energy attenuate rapidly.
6. The height of the beam, coupled with
the fact that strength of the beam attenuates rapidly with distance,
has the practical effect that the level of RF emissions off-site
will always be lower than the readings obtained within the site
during the regular monitoring task. This obviates the necessity
for regular off-site monitoring.
RF emissions surveys
7. As part of the acceptance programme prior
to the radar becoming fully operational the USAF and RAF co-operated
to carry out an extensive Electromagnetic Radiation Hazard Survey
in 1991 to monitor safety levels at the station for the workforce.
Readings were taken both on and off the site. The survey concluded
that radiation levels at normal places of work at RAF Fylingdales
were below the investigation level (2.6 mW/cm2). In addition the
readings on the public roads, paths, bridle-ways and open spaces
were well below the investigation level (the highest reading being
0.04 mW/cm2).
8. Following publication of articles in
national, local and the scientific press, the national steering
committee of Nuclear Free Local Authorities commissioned an independent
RF survey in the summer of 1991. This survey was carried out by
ELMAC Services (published 17 June 1991). It reported RF levels
on the moors around Fylingdales "30 times below the guidelines[5]"
and in local communities "80-200 times below[6]"
them. A subsequent press release by the steering committee agreed
with MoD assurances that the radar poses no health hazards to
the public.
9. In addition to the two 1991 surveys (which
both included measurements external to the site) regular RF safety
monitoring is conducted on the site. This is to confirm that the
radar is not transmitting during work in areas very close to the
actual SSPAR, or for work being carried out at height, typically
above three metres, on the site. The three metres restriction
is the practical effect of the fact that although the radar is
steered 3 above the horizontal, within the site it is still
relatively close to ground level (see paragraph 5). The frequent
monitoring also provides regular indicative survey information
of RF levels prior to any major project or works on site. This
confirms that no staff or contractors are exposed to RF emissions
above the NRPB safety standard.
10. The attached tables show a representative
selection of readings taken both at the perimeter of the station
and off the site over recent years. The more frequent on-site
monitoring continues to indicate emission levels are within the
NRPB guidelines, and consequently the levels outside the station
will be even lower.
Conclusion
11. Considerable effort and resources have
been expended in surveying the RF emissions from RAF Fylingdales.
USAF, RAF and independent specialists agree there is no health,
or environmental hazard to the public.
RAF FYLINGDALES RF RESULTS
Selection of representative results taken
around the perimeter RAF Fylingdales site
(NRPB investigation level—2.6 mW/cm2)
| Location | Date of Reading
| Reading (mW/cm2) | Comments
|
| 1 | 20/09/91 | 0.040
| 270 metres in front of Face B, 1.5 metres above ground level (AGL)
|
| 2 | 20/09/91 | 0.047
| Approximately 270 metres from Face B on temp approach road, 1.5 metres AGL
|
| LP1 | 06/04/94 | 0.020
| Lamp Post 1 outside of entrance barrier, 15ft AGL
|
| LP1 | 06/04/94 | 0.030
| Lamp Post 1 outside of entrance barrier, at top of post
|
| LP10 | 06/04/94 | 0.180
| Lamp Post 10, in front of Bldg 307 at top of post
|
| LP14 | 06/04/94 | 0.150
| Lamp Post 14A, at entrance to Main Car Park, at 15ft AGL
|
| LP14 | 06/04/94 | 0.110
| Lamp Post 14A, at entrance to Main Car Park, at top of post
|
| LP14 | 11/04/94 | 0.163
| Lamp Post 14A, at entrance to Main Car Park, level with lamp housing
|
| LP15 | 06/04/94 | 0.160
| Lamp Post 15, South Side Main Car Park, at top of post
|
| LP15 | 06/04/94 | 0.140
| Lamp Post 15, South Side Main Car Park, at 15ft AGL
|
| LP16 | 06/04/94 | 0.180
| Lamp Post 16, South Side Main Car Park, at 15ft AGL
|
| LP16 | 06/04/94 | 0.170
| Lamp Post 16, South Side Main Car Park, at top of post
|
| LP17 | 06/04/94 | 0.075
| Lamp Post 17, South Side Main Car Park, at 15ft AGL
|
| LP17 | 06/04/94 | 0.084
| Lamp Post 17, South Side Main Car Park, at top of post
|
| LP18 | 06/04/94 | 0.075
| Lamp Post 18, North Side Main Car Park, at 15ft AGL
|
| LP18 | 06/04/94 | 0.084
| Lamp Post 18, North Side Main Car Park, at top of post
|
| LP18 | 11/04/94 | 0.238
| Lamp Post 18, North Side Main Car Park, level with lamp housing
|
| LP19 | 06/04/94 | 0.130
| Lamp Post 19, North Side Main Car Park, at top of post
|
| LP19 | 06/04/94 | 0.080
| Lamp Post 19, North Side Main Car Park, at 15ft AGL
|
| LP2 | 06/04/94 | 0.084
| Lamp Post 2 outside of entrance barrier, 15ft AGL
|
| LP2 | 06/04/94 | 0.053
| Lamp Post 2 outside of entrance barrier, at top of post
|
| LP20 | 06/04/94 | 0.100
| Lamp Post 20, North Side Main Car Park, at top of post
|
| LP20 | 06/04/94 | 0.180
| Lamp Post 20, North Side Main Car Park, at 15ft AGL
|
| LP3 | 06/04/94 | 0.230
| Lamp Post 3 by entrance barrier, 15ft AGL |
| LP3 | 06/04/94 | 0.050
| Lamp Post 3 by entrance barrier, at top of post
|
| 3 | 09/09/97 | 0.018
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence, outside Water Compound
|
| 4 | 09/09/97 | 0.020
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 5 | 09/09/97 | 0.030
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 6 | 09/09/97 | 0.010
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 7 | 09/09/97 | 0.080
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 8 | 09/09/97 | 0.030
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 9 | 09/09/97 | 0.070
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 10 | 09/09/97 | 0.010
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 11 | 09/09/97 | 0.027
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 12 | 09/09/97 | 0.040
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 13 | 10/09/97 | 0.010
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 14 | 10/09/97 | 0.050
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 15 | 09/09/97 | 0.040
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 16 | 09/09/97 | 0.050
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 17 | 09/09/97 | 0.024
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 18 | 09/09/97 | 0.024
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 19 | 09/09/97 | 0.015
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 20 | 09/09/97 | 0.060
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 21 | 09/09/97 | 0.036
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 22 | 09/09/97 | 0.040
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 23 | 09/09/97 | 0.030
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 24 | 09/09/97 | 0.050
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 25 | 09/09/97 | 0.020
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 26 | 10/02/98 | 0.869
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 27 | 10/02/98 | 0.158
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 28 | 10/02/98 | 0.213
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 29 | 10/02/98 | 0.237
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 30 | 10/02/98 | 0.790
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 31 | 13/02/98 | 0.095
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 32 | 10/02/98 | 0.252
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 33 | 10/02/98 | 0.252
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| 34 | 10/02/98 | 0.237
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence 9 |
| 35 | 10/02/98 | 0.158
| Top of Outside Perimeter Fence |
| June 2002 |
0.106 [7] |
Height of 2 metres, just inside the fence, 100 metres from the SSPAR
|
Note: RF Energy dissipates rapidly over distance (according to
the Inverse Square Law). The results from measurements taken externally
(below) make this point clearly.
Results taken Externally from the RAF Fylingdales site
(see map)
(NRPB investigation level—2.6 mW/cm2)
| Attached Map
Location | Date of Reading
| Reading (mW/cm2) | Comments
|
| 1 | Sep 91 | 0.0020
| In front of Face C |
| 2 | Sep 91 | 0.0040
| |
| 3 | Sep 91 | 0.0007
| |
| 4 | Sep 91 | 0.0004
| |
| 5 | Sep 91 | 0.0010
| Junction of A169 and the site access road |
| 6 | Sep 91 | 0.0400
| In front of Face A |
4
Non-ionising electromagnetic radiation is a term that describes
part of the electromagnetic spectrum covering optical radiation
(ultraviolet (UV), visible and infrared) and electromagnetic fields
and waves from 0 Hz to 300 GHz (EMF). The latter includes power
frequencies (50-60 Hz), microwaves, radio frequencies etc. In
the UK there is no legislation specific to either exposure of
personnel at work or exposure of the public to EMF. Control of
occupational exposure is governed by the general provisions of
the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. When assessing
compliance with this legislation, the Health and Safety Executive
refers to the advice of the National Radiological Protection Board
(NRPB) and the accompanying restrictions on exposure. Similarly,
at present, the restriction of public exposure should conform
to NRPB's advice. Back
5 Equates to approximately 0.086 mW/cm2
compared to the NRPB investigation level of 2.6 mW/c Back
6 Equates to approximately 0.013-0.032
mW/c Back
7 A full survey was conducted in June 2002
but the detailed readings are not yet available. However, this
reading was the highest obtained during the survey, and represents
the probable worst case level at the fenceline.Back
|
