Elm Farm contamination testing

​​​​Request 813708428

Records from 1984–1985 indicate that a property known as Elm Farm had documented evidence of foam manifestation, and that a drain was installed above the property. ( stated in your Jersey Airport Groundwater Contamination- Chronology of events - 2nd Draft report) 

1) Were all wells in the surrounding area and within the original plume area tested for contamination at that time? If so, please provide the number of wells/boreholes tested and the results of those tests. 

2). Between 1985 and 1995, how many private wells within the original plume area remained untested for PFOS (or related PFAS contamination), if this information is available? 

3) As of the present date, within the original plume area, are all private wells not connected to the mains drinking water supply currently being tested for PFOS/PFAS contamination? If not, please provide details of the current testing programme and the number of wells included.

Response

1 and 2

It has been estimated that to provide the information requested would exceed the 12.5 hours allowed for Freedom of Information responses in accordance with Regulation 2 (1) of the Freedom of Information (Costs) (Jersey) Regulations 2014. Article 16 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has therefore been applied.

However, you might wish to send your information request in writing to Ports of Jersey:

ask@ports.je

or by post to:

Ports of Jersey, St Peter, Jersey, JE1 1BY

3

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 gives a right to request information that is held in recorded form, unless exempt.

‘As of the present date, within the original plume area, are all private wells not connected to the mains drinking water supply’ poses a question rather than seeking information held in a recorded form, therefore, Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) is currently testing across various wells and boreholes; however, some information is already publicly available in reports which can be found in the link below:

www.gov.je/PFAS​

Consequently, the current testing being undertaken is considered policy under development and Article 35 applies.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

Additionally, you might wish to send your information request in writing to Ports of Jersey as suggested above.

Articles applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b) it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

Article 16 - A scheduled public authority may refuse to supply information if cost excessive

(1) A scheduled public authority that has been requested to supply information may refuse to supply the information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed an amount determined in the manner prescribed by Regulations.

(2) Despite paragraph (1), a scheduled public authority may still supply the information requested on payment to it of a fee determined by the authority in the manner prescribed by Regulations for the purposes of this Article.

(3) Regulations may provide that, in such circumstances as the Regulations prescribe, if two or more requests for information are made to a scheduled public authority –

(a) by one person; or

(b) by different persons who appear to the scheduled public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Public Interest test

In applying this article, the following considerations were considered.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

• Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary discussions and testing have taken place.

• Disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information

• In order to best develop policy and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the policy development process.

• The need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy.

• The release of the information without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data could impact the general public with misinterpretation and generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.

• Premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. This would hamper and harm the policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider departmental business.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by distress or misinformation.

It should also be noted that once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished, however, the use of the exemption can be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing significant concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information.